HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pelletier, L. C. Articles by Dyrda, I. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pelletier, L. C. Articles by Dyrda, I.

The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, Vol 47, 352-361, Copyright © 1989 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

ARTICLES

Porcine versus pericardial bioprostheses: a comparison of late results in 1,593 patients

LC Pelletier, M Carrier, Y Leclerc, G Lepage, P deGuise and I Dyrda
Department of Surgery, Institut de Cardiologie de Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

From 1976 to 1988, 1,593 patients underwent valve replacement with a porcine (878 patients) or a pericardial bioprosthesis (715 patients). There were 701 aortic, 678 mitral, and 214 multiple-valve replacements. Follow-up was obtained for 1,559 patients (98%). Early mortality was 9% (79 patients) in the porcine valve group and 5% (37 patients) among patients with a pericardial valve (p less than 0.01). Late survival after replacement with porcine valves was 80% +/- 1% and 62% +/- 3% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. With pericardial valves, 5-year survival was 79% +/- 2%. Among valve-related complications, rates of freedom from thromboembolism, endocarditis, and hemorrhage after 6 years were similar for both valve groups. Freedom from reoperation at 6 years was also similar after aortic (96% versus 91%) or multiple-valve replacement (95% versus 88%). However, for mitral valve replacement, freedom from reoperation was significantly better with porcine valves than with pericardial valves at 6 years (92% versus 68%; p less than 0.001). This difference was mainly due to the Ionescu-Shiley valve, which accounted for 83% of primary tissue failures among pericardial bioprostheses implanted in the mitral position (10/12 patients). After 6 years, freedom from primary tissue failure of mitral valves was 92% +/- 2% with porcine and 70% +/- 11% with pericardial bioprostheses (p less than 0.0001). The degree of clinical improvement among survivors was similar with both valve types. Thus, in the aortic position, pericardial valves compare with porcine valves up to 6 years, whereas in the mitral position, the durability of the former is significantly less, mainly because of the suboptimal performance of the Ionescu- Shiley pericardial bioprosthesis.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. Gudbjartsson, T. Absi, and S. Aranki Mitral Valve Replacement Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 1031 - 1068. [Full Text]

				G. Gao, Y. Wu, G. L. Grunkemeier, A. P. Furnary, and A. Starr Durability of pericardial versus porcine aortic valves J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 21, 2004; 44(2): 384 - 388. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Gudbjartsson, S. Aranki, and L. H. Cohn Mechanical/Bioprosthetic Mitral Valve Replacement Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2003; 2(2003): 951 - 986. [Full Text]

				T. Le Tourneau, A. Vincentelli, G. Fayad, C. Savoye, O. H. Fabre, A. Prat, and H. Warembourg Ten-year echocardiographic and clinical follow-up of aortic Carpentier-Edwards pericardial and supraannular prosthesis: a case-match study Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2002; 74(6): 2010 - 2015. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. A. Folliguet, E. Le Bret, J. Bachet, and F. Laborde Pericarbon pericardial bioprosthesis: an experience based on the lessons of the past Ann. Thorac. Surg., May 1, 2001; 71 (2007): S289 - S292. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				U. Hvass, G. M. Palatianos, R. Frassani, C. Puricelli, and M. O'Brien MULTICENTER STUDY OF STENTLESS VALVE REPLACEMENT IN THE SMALL AORTIC ROOT J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., February 1, 1999; 117(2): 267 - 272. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. L. McDonald, R. C. Daly, H. V. Schaff, C. J. Mullany, F. A. Miller, J. J. Morris, and T. A. Orszulak Hemodynamic Performance of Small Aortic Valve Bioprostheses: Is There a Difference? Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 1997; 63(2): 362 - 366. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				N. Vyavahare, D. Hirsch, E. Lerner, J. Z. Baskin, F. J. Schoen, R. Bianco, H. S. Kruth, R. Zand, and R. J. Levy Prevention of Bioprosthetic Heart Valve Calcification by Ethanol Preincubation: Efficacy and Mechanisms Circulation, January 21, 1997; 95(2): 479 - 488. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				M. R. Aupart, A. L. Sirinelli, F. F. Diemont, Y. A. Meurisse, X. B. Dreyfus, and M. A. Marchand The Last Generation of Pericardial Valves in the Aortic Position: Ten-Year Follow-up in 589 Patients Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 1996; 61(2): 615 - 620. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				R. A. Moggio, R. W. Pooley, M. R. Sarabu, J. Christiana, A. W. Ho, and G. E. Reed Experience with the Mitroflow aortic bioprosthesis J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., August 1, 1994; 108(2): 215 - 220. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				K. E. Hammermeister, G. K. Sethi, W. G. Henderson, C. Oprian, T. Kim, S. Rahimtoola, and The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study on Valvular A Comparison of Outcomes in Men 11 Years after Heart-Valve Replacement with a Mechanical Valve or Bioprosthesis N. Engl. J. Med., May 6, 1993; 328(18): 1289 - 1296. [Abstract] [Full Text]