Durability of pericardial versus porcine aortic valves

Guangqiang Gao, YingXing Wu, Gary L. Grunkemeier, Anthony P. Furnary, Albert Starr

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

88 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives This study compares the long-term performance of the Carpentier-Edwards (CE) porcine bioprosthesis and the CE pericardial bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR). Background With new bioprostheses on the horizon, there is renewed interest in how the long-term durability of current pericardial bioprostheses compares with the traditional porcine bioprosthesis. Methods We reviewed 518 AVR with CE porcine valves from 1974 to 1996 and 1,021 AVR with CE pericardial valves from 1991 to 2002. The age distribution and clinical profiles were similar for both groups. The total (mean) follow-up was 3,322 (6.4) years for porcine and 2,556 (2.5) years for pericardial. Results Long-term mortality was similar (p = 0.29) for porcine and pericardial, with 10-year survival rates of 34 ± 2% and 38 ± 6%, respectively. Ten-year freedom from major adverse cardiac events was also similar for both (respectively): thromboembolism (80 ± 2% and 87 ± 2%; p = 0.24); endocarditis (98 ± 1% and 99 ± 1%; p = 0.30). However, 10-year freedom from explant was lower for porcine (90 ± 2%) than for pericardial (97 ± 1%, p = 0.04). Reasons for explant for porcine were structural valve deterioration (SVD) (n = 25), endocarditis (n = 4), and periprosthetic leak (n = 2). The reasons for explant for pericardial were SVD (n = 4), endocarditis (n = 4) and periprosthetic leak (n = 1). Conclusions The current CE pericardial valve offers better midterm durability than the traditional CE porcine valve. Its freedom from SVD and reoperation makes it our current bioprosthesis of choice for AVR in appropriately selected patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)384-388
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of the American College of Cardiology
Volume44
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 21 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Aortic Valve
Bioprosthesis
Swine
Endocarditis
Thromboembolism
Age Distribution
Reoperation
Survival Rate
Mortality

Keywords

  • aortic valve replacement
  • AVR
  • Carpentier-Edwards
  • CE
  • FDA
  • Food and Drug Administration
  • Kaplan-Meier
  • KM
  • structural valve deterioration
  • SVD

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

Durability of pericardial versus porcine aortic valves. / Gao, Guangqiang; Wu, YingXing; Grunkemeier, Gary L.; Furnary, Anthony P.; Starr, Albert.

In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Vol. 44, No. 2, 21.07.2004, p. 384-388.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gao, G, Wu, Y, Grunkemeier, GL, Furnary, AP & Starr, A 2004, 'Durability of pericardial versus porcine aortic valves', Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 384-388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.01.053
Gao, Guangqiang ; Wu, YingXing ; Grunkemeier, Gary L. ; Furnary, Anthony P. ; Starr, Albert. / Durability of pericardial versus porcine aortic valves. In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2004 ; Vol. 44, No. 2. pp. 384-388.
@article{dd9a04ae68b949d9b3935f698265c851,
title = "Durability of pericardial versus porcine aortic valves",
abstract = "Objectives This study compares the long-term performance of the Carpentier-Edwards (CE) porcine bioprosthesis and the CE pericardial bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR). Background With new bioprostheses on the horizon, there is renewed interest in how the long-term durability of current pericardial bioprostheses compares with the traditional porcine bioprosthesis. Methods We reviewed 518 AVR with CE porcine valves from 1974 to 1996 and 1,021 AVR with CE pericardial valves from 1991 to 2002. The age distribution and clinical profiles were similar for both groups. The total (mean) follow-up was 3,322 (6.4) years for porcine and 2,556 (2.5) years for pericardial. Results Long-term mortality was similar (p = 0.29) for porcine and pericardial, with 10-year survival rates of 34 ± 2{\%} and 38 ± 6{\%}, respectively. Ten-year freedom from major adverse cardiac events was also similar for both (respectively): thromboembolism (80 ± 2{\%} and 87 ± 2{\%}; p = 0.24); endocarditis (98 ± 1{\%} and 99 ± 1{\%}; p = 0.30). However, 10-year freedom from explant was lower for porcine (90 ± 2{\%}) than for pericardial (97 ± 1{\%}, p = 0.04). Reasons for explant for porcine were structural valve deterioration (SVD) (n = 25), endocarditis (n = 4), and periprosthetic leak (n = 2). The reasons for explant for pericardial were SVD (n = 4), endocarditis (n = 4) and periprosthetic leak (n = 1). Conclusions The current CE pericardial valve offers better midterm durability than the traditional CE porcine valve. Its freedom from SVD and reoperation makes it our current bioprosthesis of choice for AVR in appropriately selected patients.",
keywords = "aortic valve replacement, AVR, Carpentier-Edwards, CE, FDA, Food and Drug Administration, Kaplan-Meier, KM, structural valve deterioration, SVD",
author = "Guangqiang Gao and YingXing Wu and Grunkemeier, {Gary L.} and Furnary, {Anthony P.} and Albert Starr",
year = "2004",
month = "7",
day = "21",
doi = "10.1016/j.jacc.2004.01.053",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "44",
pages = "384--388",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Cardiology",
issn = "0735-1097",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Durability of pericardial versus porcine aortic valves

AU - Gao, Guangqiang

AU - Wu, YingXing

AU - Grunkemeier, Gary L.

AU - Furnary, Anthony P.

AU - Starr, Albert

PY - 2004/7/21

Y1 - 2004/7/21

N2 - Objectives This study compares the long-term performance of the Carpentier-Edwards (CE) porcine bioprosthesis and the CE pericardial bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR). Background With new bioprostheses on the horizon, there is renewed interest in how the long-term durability of current pericardial bioprostheses compares with the traditional porcine bioprosthesis. Methods We reviewed 518 AVR with CE porcine valves from 1974 to 1996 and 1,021 AVR with CE pericardial valves from 1991 to 2002. The age distribution and clinical profiles were similar for both groups. The total (mean) follow-up was 3,322 (6.4) years for porcine and 2,556 (2.5) years for pericardial. Results Long-term mortality was similar (p = 0.29) for porcine and pericardial, with 10-year survival rates of 34 ± 2% and 38 ± 6%, respectively. Ten-year freedom from major adverse cardiac events was also similar for both (respectively): thromboembolism (80 ± 2% and 87 ± 2%; p = 0.24); endocarditis (98 ± 1% and 99 ± 1%; p = 0.30). However, 10-year freedom from explant was lower for porcine (90 ± 2%) than for pericardial (97 ± 1%, p = 0.04). Reasons for explant for porcine were structural valve deterioration (SVD) (n = 25), endocarditis (n = 4), and periprosthetic leak (n = 2). The reasons for explant for pericardial were SVD (n = 4), endocarditis (n = 4) and periprosthetic leak (n = 1). Conclusions The current CE pericardial valve offers better midterm durability than the traditional CE porcine valve. Its freedom from SVD and reoperation makes it our current bioprosthesis of choice for AVR in appropriately selected patients.

AB - Objectives This study compares the long-term performance of the Carpentier-Edwards (CE) porcine bioprosthesis and the CE pericardial bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR). Background With new bioprostheses on the horizon, there is renewed interest in how the long-term durability of current pericardial bioprostheses compares with the traditional porcine bioprosthesis. Methods We reviewed 518 AVR with CE porcine valves from 1974 to 1996 and 1,021 AVR with CE pericardial valves from 1991 to 2002. The age distribution and clinical profiles were similar for both groups. The total (mean) follow-up was 3,322 (6.4) years for porcine and 2,556 (2.5) years for pericardial. Results Long-term mortality was similar (p = 0.29) for porcine and pericardial, with 10-year survival rates of 34 ± 2% and 38 ± 6%, respectively. Ten-year freedom from major adverse cardiac events was also similar for both (respectively): thromboembolism (80 ± 2% and 87 ± 2%; p = 0.24); endocarditis (98 ± 1% and 99 ± 1%; p = 0.30). However, 10-year freedom from explant was lower for porcine (90 ± 2%) than for pericardial (97 ± 1%, p = 0.04). Reasons for explant for porcine were structural valve deterioration (SVD) (n = 25), endocarditis (n = 4), and periprosthetic leak (n = 2). The reasons for explant for pericardial were SVD (n = 4), endocarditis (n = 4) and periprosthetic leak (n = 1). Conclusions The current CE pericardial valve offers better midterm durability than the traditional CE porcine valve. Its freedom from SVD and reoperation makes it our current bioprosthesis of choice for AVR in appropriately selected patients.

KW - aortic valve replacement

KW - AVR

KW - Carpentier-Edwards

KW - CE

KW - FDA

KW - Food and Drug Administration

KW - Kaplan-Meier

KW - KM

KW - structural valve deterioration

KW - SVD

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=3242685283&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=3242685283&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.01.053

DO - 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.01.053

M3 - Article

C2 - 15261935

AN - SCOPUS:3242685283

VL - 44

SP - 384

EP - 388

JO - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

JF - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

SN - 0735-1097

IS - 2

ER -