Elena Caporali1, Riccardo Bonato1, Catherine Klersy2, Enrico Ferrari1. 1. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Cardiocentro Ticino, Lugano, Switzerland. 2. Clinical Epidemiology and Biometry, IRCCS Fondazione Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We investigated hospital and midterm outcome of patients operated for an aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a pericardial Perimount or a Porcine Hancock-II valve. METHODS: We analyzed 353 patients with Perimount Magna (n = 189) or Hancock-II valves (n = 164). Echocardiographic data, hospital outcome, and follow-up were collected and compared. The role of the type of valve on perioperative and midterm outcome was investigated. RESULTS: Mean age was 75.3 ± 6.8 and 74.3 ± 7.1 years (P = .17) for Perimount and Hancock-II group, respectively. Fifty-four Perimount (28.6%) and 24 patients with Hancock-II (14.6%) required urgent procedures (P = .002), including six type-A dissections and five endocarditis. EuroSCORE-II was 3.1 ± 2.7% (Perimount) and 2.7 ± 2.2% (Hancock-II). Combined procedures were performed in 115 Perimount (60.8%) and 71 patients with Hancock (43.3%); redo procedures counted for 1% and 2.4%, respectively (P = .42). Mean valve size was 23.2 ± 1.8 mm for pericardial and 23.6 ± 1.9 mm for porcine valves (P = .08). Hospital mortality (6.3% vs 2.4%; P = .05), kidney failure (11.6% vs 9.8%; P = .73), and new pacemaker implantation rates (6.3% vs 3.0%; P = .21) were higher in the Perimount group reflecting the fact that more urgent, combined, and critical procedures were implanted with a Perimount Magna. Overall, 51 patients died over 60 months (34 Perimount, 17 Hancock), corresponding to a mortality of 5.3 per 100-persons year (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.8-7.4) and 3.0 (95% CI: 1.8-4.8), respectively. Survival at 5 years was 76% (95% CI: 68-82) and 83% (95% CI: 74-89) in the Perimount and Hancock groups (log-rank test; P = .099). CONCLUSIONS: We confirm a good clinical outcome of patients with AVR with modern pericardial or a porcine bioprosthesis. Despite better hemodynamic, the Perimount does not improve the midterm clinical outcome compared with the porcine valve.
BACKGROUND: We investigated hospital and midterm outcome of patients operated for an aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a pericardial Perimount or a Porcine Hancock-II valve. METHODS: We analyzed 353 patients with Perimount Magna (n = 189) or Hancock-II valves (n = 164). Echocardiographic data, hospital outcome, and follow-up were collected and compared. The role of the type of valve on perioperative and midterm outcome was investigated. RESULTS: Mean age was 75.3 ± 6.8 and 74.3 ± 7.1 years (P = .17) for Perimount and Hancock-II group, respectively. Fifty-four Perimount (28.6%) and 24 patients with Hancock-II (14.6%) required urgent procedures (P = .002), including six type-A dissections and five endocarditis. EuroSCORE-II was 3.1 ± 2.7% (Perimount) and 2.7 ± 2.2% (Hancock-II). Combined procedures were performed in 115 Perimount (60.8%) and 71 patients with Hancock (43.3%); redo procedures counted for 1% and 2.4%, respectively (P = .42). Mean valve size was 23.2 ± 1.8 mm for pericardial and 23.6 ± 1.9 mm for porcine valves (P = .08). Hospital mortality (6.3% vs 2.4%; P = .05), kidney failure (11.6% vs 9.8%; P = .73), and new pacemaker implantation rates (6.3% vs 3.0%; P = .21) were higher in the Perimount group reflecting the fact that more urgent, combined, and critical procedures were implanted with a Perimount Magna. Overall, 51 patientsdied over 60 months (34 Perimount, 17 Hancock), corresponding to a mortality of 5.3 per 100-persons year (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.8-7.4) and 3.0 (95% CI: 1.8-4.8), respectively. Survival at 5 years was 76% (95% CI: 68-82) and 83% (95% CI: 74-89) in the Perimount and Hancock groups (log-rank test; P = .099). CONCLUSIONS: We confirm a good clinical outcome of patients with AVR with modern pericardial or a porcine bioprosthesis. Despite better hemodynamic, the Perimount does not improve the midterm clinical outcome compared with the porcine valve.