BACKGROUND: Bioprosthetic options are increasingly used for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). However, current decision making regarding bioprosthetic valve choice is not data-driven given incomplete information on comparative long-term outcomes after stented bovine pericardial (BoAVR) vs porcine (PoAVR) AVR. As such, this study sought to examine the effect of bioprosthetic valve choice on long-term survival and reoperation after AVR. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all stented bioprosthetic AVRs, with or without coronary artery bypass grafting procedures, at a single tertiary referral institution from 1980 to 2013 was conducted using a prospectively maintained database. Procedures were classified as BoAVR or PoAVR. The effect of valve type on long-term survival was assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis and a Cox proportional hazard model. Subanalyses stratifying by valve size and patient age at the time of AVR assessing mortality and reoperation were also conducted. RESULTS: We identified 2,010 stented bioprosthetic AVR patients, comprising 1,411 BoAVRs (70.2%) and 599 PoAVRs (29.8%), 868 (43.2%) of whom underwent concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting. Kaplan-Meier analysis (p = 0.12) and Cox models (hazard ratio BoAVR vs PoAVR, 1.08; p = 0.40) demonstrated no difference in long-term survival or need for reoperation after BoAVR vs PoAVR. Subanalyses of valve size and patient age also failed to show any association between valve choice and long-term survival or need for reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing AVR with a stented bioprosthetic valve, with or without coronary artery bypass grafting, the choice of a porcine vs bovine pericardial bioprosthesis does not appear to affect long-term survival or need for reoperation, regardless of valve size or patient age. As such, stented bioprosthetic valves would appear to be fungible, and therefore, valve choice should be driven by local market factors similar to other commodities.
BACKGROUND: Bioprosthetic options are increasingly used for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). However, current decision making regarding bioprosthetic valve choice is not data-driven given incomplete information on comparative long-term outcomes after stented bovine pericardial (BoAVR) vs porcine (PoAVR) AVR. As such, this study sought to examine the effect of bioprosthetic valve choice on long-term survival and reoperation after AVR. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all stented bioprosthetic AVRs, with or without coronary artery bypass grafting procedures, at a single tertiary referral institution from 1980 to 2013 was conducted using a prospectively maintained database. Procedures were classified as BoAVR or PoAVR. The effect of valve type on long-term survival was assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis and a Cox proportional hazard model. Subanalyses stratifying by valve size and patient age at the time of AVR assessing mortality and reoperation were also conducted. RESULTS: We identified 2,010 stented bioprosthetic AVR patients, comprising 1,411 BoAVRs (70.2%) and 599 PoAVRs (29.8%), 868 (43.2%) of whom underwent concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting. Kaplan-Meier analysis (p = 0.12) and Cox models (hazard ratio BoAVR vs PoAVR, 1.08; p = 0.40) demonstrated no difference in long-term survival or need for reoperation after BoAVR vs PoAVR. Subanalyses of valve size and patient age also failed to show any association between valve choice and long-term survival or need for reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing AVR with a stented bioprosthetic valve, with or without coronary artery bypass grafting, the choice of a porcine vs bovine pericardial bioprosthesis does not appear to affect long-term survival or need for reoperation, regardless of valve size or patient age. As such, stented bioprosthetic valves would appear to be fungible, and therefore, valve choice should be driven by local market factors similar to other commodities.
Authors: Suengwon Lee; Robert J Levy; Abigail J Christian; Stanley L Hazen; Nathan E Frick; Eric K Lai; Juan B Grau; Joseph E Bavaria; Giovanni Ferrari Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-05-08 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Hong Ju Shin; Wan Kee Kim; Jin Kyoung Kim; Joon Bum Kim; Sung-Ho Jung; Suk Jung Choo; Cheol Hyun Chung; Jae Won Lee Journal: Korean Circ J Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 3.243