Literature DB >> 31472130

Durability of Mitral Valve Bioprostheses: A Meta-Analysis of Long-Term Follow-up Studies.

Pietro Giorgio Malvindi1, Florinda Mastro2, Mariusz Kowalewski3, Margot Ringold2, Vito Margari1, Piotr Suwalski4, Giuseppe Speziale5, Domenico Paparella6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Porcine and pericardial valves exhibited similar freedom from structural valve deterioration after aortic valve replacement. Limited data exist regarding their durability at long-term follow-up in the mitral position.
METHODS: A literature search was performed through online databases. Papers reporting freedom from tissue valve deterioration after mitral valve replacement with a follow-up longer than 5 years were retrieved. Four porcine valves (Carpentier-Edwards [Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA] and Hancock, Hancock II, and Mosaic [Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, MN]) and 1 pericardial prosthesis (Carpentier-Edwards) were the objects of the study. The structural valve deterioration (SVD) rate per year was calculated for each type of prosthesis. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test analysis were performed to compare the long-term durability of porcine and pericardial valves.
RESULTS: Forty full-text papers including more than 15,000 patients were considered for the meta-analysis. Porcine valves were generally implanted in younger patients in the first period after their introduction. The mean age of the patients receiving a mitral bioprosthesis increased from 50 to 70 years over the decades. In patients operated after 1980 who had similar mean age at the time of implant, freedom from SVD was higher in the group of porcine valves with Mosaic prosthesis, showing the lowest rate of SVD. Long-term survival was higher for Mosaic porcine and Carpentier pericardial valves.
CONCLUSIONS: In surgical populations that underwent mitral valve replacement after 1980 with new generation tissue valves and similar mean age at the implant time, we found, at long-term follow-up, a higher freedom from SVD in the group of porcine prostheses.
Copyright © 2020 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31472130     DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.07.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg        ISSN: 0003-4975            Impact factor:   5.102


  5 in total

Review 1.  Prosthetic cardiac valves: history and review of cardiac prostheses clinically available in Japan.

Authors:  Eiki Tayama; Kosuke Saku; Tomoyuki Anegawa; Atsunobu Oryoji; Shinya Negoto
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2021-08-25       Impact factor: 2.549

2.  Comparative analysis of structural valve deterioration and long-term clinical outcomes after bovine pericardial versus porcine bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement.

Authors:  Woojung Kim; Ho Young Hwang; Yoonjin Kang; Ji Seong Kim; Suk Ho Sohn; Jae Woong Choi; Kyung Hwan Kim
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2021-07       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  Noncalcific Mechanisms of Bioprosthetic Structural Valve Degeneration.

Authors:  Matteo Marro; Alexander P Kossar; Yingfei Xue; Antonio Frasca; Robert J Levy; Giovanni Ferrari
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2021-01-26       Impact factor: 5.501

4.  Late results after mitral valve replacement with Mosaic bioprosthesis in patients aged 65 years or younger.

Authors:  Giovanni A Chiariello; Anne-Sophie Beraud; Olivier Vahdat; Jérôme Van Rothem; Olivier Garcia; Philippe Soula; Pierre Berthoumieu; Issam Abouliatim
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2021-07-26

5.  Early Basal Cuspal Tear of a Porcine Bioprosthetic Mitral Valve Causing Massive Mitral Regurgitation.

Authors:  Muhammed Tamim; Christos Alexiou; Yaser AlKadi; Mohsen S Mahmoud; Fatema Qaddoura
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Dev Dis       Date:  2020-11-06
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.