Karthik Raman 1 , Anbarasu Mohanraj 1 , Vijayanand Palanisamy 1 , Bharat Kumar Mohandoss 1 , Sivakumar Pandian 1 , Anjith Prakash Rajakumar 1 , Jacob Jamesraj 1 , Ejaz Ahmed Sheriff 1 , Valikapathalil Mathew Kurian 1 , Rajan Sethuratnam 1 , Ravi Agarwal 1 Show Affiliations »
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bioprosthetic valves are increasingly used for surgical mitral valve replacement (MVR). The long-term outcomes of bovine (BoMVR) vs porcine (PoMVR) remain an enigma regarding the durability. This study aims to examine the outcomes of BoMVR vs PoMVR. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all bioprosthetic MVRs, with concomitant procedures, at a single tertiary referral institution from January 2005 to December 2008 was conducted. Procedures were classified as BoMVR or PoMVR. The age group was from 40 to 70 years. RESULTS: We identified 154 BoMVR patients and 120 PoMVR patients after matching the two groups with respect to age, sex, valve size and concomitant procedures. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis model was used for corresponding statistical analysis. Freedom from reoperation (all cause), freedom from non-structural valve deterioration, freedom from structural valve deterioration, freedom from heart failure and freedom from infective endocarditis were 96.4 ± 0.08, 97.1 ± 0.07, 96.4 ± 0.08%, 98.2 ± 0.07, and 98.6 ± 0.06% in PoMVR, respectively, and 92.6 ± 0.09, 91.6 ± 0.08, 90.6 ± 0.09, 94 ± 0.08, and 92.8 ± 0.08% in BoMVR groups, respectively, at the end of 10-year follow-up (mean follow up of 6.2 ± 2.3 years). Overall, 20 (12.9%) patients were lost to follow-up in the BoMVR and 15(12.5%) patients in the PoMVR groups for a global follow-up of 87.1%. CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing MVR with a bioprosthetic valve, the choice of PoMVR vs BoMVR favours more in favour of PoMVR as evidenced by the outcome results. Probably long-term follow-up with more patients might throw further light on the debatable topic. © Indian Association of Cardiovascular-Thoracic Surgeons 2019.
BACKGROUND: Bioprosthetic valves are increasingly used for surgical mitral valve replacement (MVR). The long-term outcomes of bovine (BoMVR) vs porcine (PoMVR) remain an enigma regarding the durability. This study aims to examine the outcomes of BoMVR vs PoMVR. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all bioprosthetic MVRs, with concomitant procedures, at a single tertiary referral institution from January 2005 to December 2008 was conducted. Procedures were classified as BoMVR or PoMVR. The age group was from 40 to 70 years. RESULTS: We identified 154 BoMVR patients and 120 PoMVR patients after matching the two groups with respect to age, sex, valve size and concomitant procedures. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis model was used for corresponding statistical analysis. Freedom from reoperation (all cause), freedom from non-structural valve deterioration, freedom from structural valve deterioration, freedom from heart failure and freedom from infective endocarditis were 96.4 ± 0.08, 97.1 ± 0.07, 96.4 ± 0.08%, 98.2 ± 0.07, and 98.6 ± 0.06% in PoMVR, respectively, and 92.6 ± 0.09, 91.6 ± 0.08, 90.6 ± 0.09, 94 ± 0.08, and 92.8 ± 0.08% in BoMVR groups, respectively, at the end of 10-year follow-up (mean follow up of 6.2 ± 2.3 years). Overall, 20 (12.9%) patients were lost to follow-up in the BoMVR and 15(12.5%) patients in the PoMVR groups for a global follow-up of 87.1%. CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing MVR with a bioprosthetic valve, the choice of PoMVR vs BoMVR favours more in favour of PoMVR as evidenced by the outcome results. Probably long-term follow-up with more patients might throw further light on the debatable topic. © Indian Association of Cardiovascular-Thoracic Surgeons 2019.
Entities: Chemical
Keywords:
Bioprosthetic valve; Bovine; Porcine
Year: 2019
PMID： 33061108 PMCID： PMC7525378 DOI： 10.1007/s12055-019-00847-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg ISSN： 0970-9134