A comparison of outcomes between bovine pericardial and porcine valves in 38 040 patients in England and Wales over 10 years

European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery

Volumn 47, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 1067-1074

  Hickey, Graeme L ^a,b   Grant, Stuart W ^b,c   Bridgewater, Ben ^a,b,c   Kendall, Simon ^d   Bryan, Alan J ^e   Kuo, James ^f   Dunning, Joel ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^d JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^e BRISTOL ROYAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

^f DERRIFORD HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Aortic valve replacement; Bovine pericardial; Outcomes; Porcine

Indexed keywords

HEPARIN; NITRIC ACID DERIVATIVE;

AGED; AORTA VALVE PROSTHESIS; AORTA VALVE REPLACEMENT; ARTICLE; BACTERIAL ENDOCARDITIS; BODY MASS; CLINICAL STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT; DIABETES MELLITUS; DYSPNEA; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEART LEFT VENTRICLE EJECTION FRACTION; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; HEMODYNAMICS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL HISTORY; NEUROLOGIC DISEASE; NEW YORK HEART ASSOCIATION CLASS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME VARIABLE; PREOPERATIVE CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PULMONARY HYPERTENSION; REINTERVENTION FREE SURVIVAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SURVIVAL RATE; UNITED KINGDOM; UNSTABLE ANGINA PECTORIS; ADVERSE EFFECTS; ANIMAL; AORTA VALVE; BIOPROSTHESIS; BOVINE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DEVICES; ENGLAND; HEART DEFECTS, CONGENITAL; HEART VALVE DISEASES; HEART VALVE REPLACEMENT; MORTALITY; PIG; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WALES;

ANIMALS; AORTIC VALVE; BIOPROSTHESIS; CATTLE; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HEART DEFECTS, CONGENITAL; HEART VALVE DISEASES; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; HUMANS; MALE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SWINE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WALES;

EID: 84930461292     PISSN: 10107940     EISSN: 1873734X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezu307     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Bach DS, Metras J, Doty JR, Yun KL, Dumesnil JG, Kon ND. Freedom from structural valve deterioration among patients aged < or = 60 years undergoing Freestyle stentless aortic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis 2007;16:649-55.
2. Bridgewater B, Keogh B, Kinsman R, Walton P. The Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain & Ireland: the Sixth National Adult Cardiac Surgical Database Report. Henley-on-Thames, UK: Dendrite Clinical Systems Ltd, 2009.
3. Yap KH, Murphy R, Devbhandari M, Venkateswaran R. Aortic valve replacement: is porcine or bovine valve better? Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg 2013;16:361-73.
4. Hickey GL, Grant SW, Cosgriff R, Dimarakis I, Pagano D, Kappetein AP et al. Clinical registries: governance, management, analysis and applications. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2013;44:605-14.
5. Van Buuren S. Flexible Imputation of Missing Data. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2012.
6. Normand S-LT, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E, Ayanian JZ, Ryan TJ, Cleary PD et al. Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:387-98.
7. Therneau TM, Grambsch PM, Pankratz VS. Penalized survival models and frailty. J Comput Graph Stat 2003;12:156-75.
8. Therneau TM, Grambsch PM, Fleming TR. Martingale-based residuals for survival models. Biometrika 1990;77:147-60.
9. Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: Wiley, 1987.
10. Liao K, Seifter E, Hoffman D, Yellin EL, Frater RW. Bovine pericardium versus porcine aortic valve: comparison of tissue biological properties as prosthetic valves. Artif Organs 1992;16:361-5.
11. Borger MA, Nette F, Maganti M, Feindel CM. Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna valve versus Medtronic Hancock II: a matched hemodynamic comparison. Ann Thorac Surg 2007;83:2054-8.
12. Reichenspurner H, Weinhold C, Nollert G, Kaulbach HG, Vetter HO, Boehm DH et al. Comparison of porcine biological valves with pericardial valves-a 12-year clinical experience with 1123 bio-prostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1995;43:19-26.
13. Dalmau MJ, González-Santos JM, Blázquez JA, Sastre JA, López-Rodríguez J, Bueno M et al. Hemodynamic performance of the Medtronic Mosaic and Perimount Magna aortic bioprostheses: five-year results of a prospectively randomized study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2011;39:844-52.
14. Dunning J, Gao H, Chambers J, Moat NE, Murphy G, Pagano D et al. Aortic valve surgery: marked increases in volume and significant decreases in mechanical valve use-an analysis of 41,227 patients over 5 years from the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland National database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011;142:776-82.
15. Jamieson WRE, David TE, Feindel CMS, Miyagishima RT, Germann E. Performance of the Carpentier-Edwards SAV and Hancock-II porcine bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis 2002;11:424-30.
16. David TE, Puschmann R, Ivanov J, Bos J, Armstrong S, Feindel CM et al. Aortic valve replacement with stentless and stented porcine valves: a casematch study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1998;116:236-41.
17. Wagner IM, Eichinger WB, Bleiziffer S, Botzenhardt F, Gebauer I, Guenzinger R et al. Influence of completely supra-annular placement of bioprostheses on exercise haemodynamics in patients with a small aortic annulus. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007;133:1234-41.
18. Chambers JB, Rajani R, Parkin D, Rimington HM, Blauth CI, Venn GE et al. Bovine pericardial versus porcine stented replacement aortic valves: early results of a randomized comparison of the Perimount and the Mosaic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008;136:1142-8.
19. Ruzicka DJ, Hettich I, Hutter A, Bleiziffer S, Badiu CC, Bauernschmitt R et al. The complete supraannular concept: in vivo hemodynamics of bovine and porcine aortic bioprostheses. Circulation 2009;120:S139-45.
20. Khoo JP, Davies JE, Ang KL, Galiñanes M, Chin DT. Differences in performance of five types of aortic valve prostheses: haemodynamic assessment by dobutamine stress echocardiography. Heart 2013;99:41-7.
21. Chan V, Kulik A, Tran A, Hendry P, Masters R, Mesana TG et al. Long-term clinical and hemodynamic performance of the Hancock II versus the Perimount aortic bioprostheses. Circulation 2010;122:S10-6.
22. Svensson LG, Blackstone EH, Cosgrove DM. Surgical options in young adults with aortic valve disease. Curr Probl Cardiol 2003;28:417-80.
23. Magilligan DJ Jr, Lewis JW Jr, Stein P, Alam M. The porcine bioprosthetic heart valve: experience at 15 years. Ann Thorac Surg 1989;48:324-9.
24. Banbury MK, Cosgrove DM, White JA, Blackstone EH, Frater RW, Okies JE. Age and valve size effect on the long-term durability of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;72: 753-7.
25. David TE, Armstrong S, Maganti M. Hancock II bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: the gold standard of bioprosthetic valves durability? Ann Thorac Surg 2010;90:775-81.