Long-Term Survival After Bovine Pericardial Versus Porcine Stented Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: Does Valve Choice Matter?

Annals of Thoracic Surgery

Volumn 100, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 550-559

  Ganapathi, Asvin M ^a   Englum, Brian R ^a   Keenan, Jeffrey E ^a   Schechter, Matthew A ^a   Wang, Hanghang ^a   Smith, Peter K ^a   Glower, Donald D ^a   Hughes, G Chad ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; AORTA VALVE REPLACEMENT; ARTICLE; CARDIAC PATIENT; CARPENTIER EDWARDS BIOPROSTHESIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT; EXPERIMENTAL CATTLE; EXPERIMENTAL PIG; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LONG TERM SURVIVAL; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDTRONIC HANCOCK; MEDTRONIC MOSAIC; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SAINT JUDE HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; SORIN MITROFLOW; ST. JUDE BIOCOR; SURGICAL PATIENT; BIOPROSTHESIS; CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE; HEART FAILURE; NOTE; QUALITY OF LIFE; SURVIVAL RATE; ANIMAL; AORTA VALVE; BOVINE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HEART VALVE DISEASES; MALE; MORTALITY; PERICARDIUM; PIG; PROSTHESIS; STENT; TIME; TRANSPLANTATION;

AGED; ANIMALS; AORTIC VALVE; BIOPROSTHESIS; CATTLE; FEMALE; HEART VALVE DISEASES; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; HUMANS; MALE; PERICARDIUM; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; STENTS; SURVIVAL RATE; SWINE; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84938739097     PISSN: 00034975     EISSN: 15526259     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.02.067     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. J.M. Brown, S.M. O'Brien, C. Wu, J.A. Sikora, B.P. Griffith, and J.S. Gammie Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the society of thoracic surgeons national database J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 137 2009 82 90
2. Hickey GL, Grant SW, Bridgewater B, et al. A comparison of outcomes between bovine pericardial and porcine valves in 38 040 patients in England and Wales over 10 years. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg [published online ahead of print Sept 4, 2014] http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezu307.
3. R.A. Nishimura, C.M. Otto, R.O. Bonow, and et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College Of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines Circulation 129 2014 e521 e643
4. W.B. Eichinger, F. Botzenhardt, A. Keithahn, and et al. Exercise hemodynamics of bovine versus porcine bioprostheses: a prospective randomized comparison of the Mosaic and Perimount aortic valves J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 129 2005 1056 1063
5. I. Gallo, F. Nistal, E. Arbe, and E. Artinano Comparative study of primary tissue failure between porcine (Hancock and Carpentier-Edwards) and bovine pericardial (Ionescu-Shiley) bioprostheses in the aortic position at five- to nine-year follow-up Am J Cardiol 61 1988 812 816
6. D.J. Ruzicka, I. Hettich, A. Hutter, and et al. The complete supraannular concept: in vivo hemodynamics of bovine and porcine aortic bioprostheses Circulation 120 2009 S139 S145
7. K.H. Yap, R. Murphy, M. Devbhandari, and R. Venkateswaran Aortic valve replacement: is porcine or bovine valve better? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 16 2013 361 373
8. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Adult cardiac surgery database training manual v2.73; 8/12. Available at http://www.sts.org/sites/default/files/documents/Training Manual Update 8 12.pdf. Accessed June 14, 2013.
9. M.M. Horvath, S. Winfield, S. Evans, S. Slopek, H. Shang, and J. Ferranti The deduce guided query tool: providing simplified access to clinical data for research and quality improvement J Biomed Inform 44 2011 266 276
10. V.M. Walley, C.A. Keon, M. Khalili, D. Moher, M. Campagna, and W.J. Keon Ionescu-Shiley valve failure. I: experience with 125 standard-profile explants Ann Thorac Surg 54 1992 111 116
11. H. Reichenspurner, C. Weinhold, G. Nollert, and et al. Comparison of porcine biological valves with pericardial valves - a 12-year clinical experience with 1123 bio-prostheses Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 43 1995 19 26
12. G. Gao, Y. Wu, G.L. Grunkemeier, A.P. Furnary, and A. Starr Durability of pericardial versus porcine aortic valves J Am Coll Cardiol 44 2004 384 388
13. M.A. Chaudhry, L. Raco, E.W. Muriithi, G.M. Bernacca, M.M. Tolland, and D.J. Wheatley Porcine versus pericardial bioprostheses: eleven-year follow up of a prospective randomized trial J Heart Valve Dis 9 2000 429 437 discussion 437-8
14. L.C. Pelletier, M. Carrier, Y. Leclerc, G. Lepage, P. deGuise, and I. Dyrda Porcine versus pericardial bioprostheses: a comparison of late results in 1,593 patients Ann Thorac Surg 47 1989 352 361
15. W.R. Jamieson, E. Germann, M.R. Aupart, P.H. Neville, M.A. Marchand, and G.J. Fradet 15-year comparison of supra-annular porcine and Perimount aortic bioprostheses Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann 14 2006 200 205
16. J.B. Chambers, R. Rajani, D. Parkin, and 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 136 2008 1142 1148
17. R.M. Suri, K.J. Zehr, T.M. Sundt 3rd, and et al. Left ventricular mass regression after porcine versus bovine aortic valve replacement: a randomized comparison Ann Thorac Surg 88 2009 1232 1237
18. K. Liao, E. Seifter, D. Hoffman, E.L. Yellin, and R.W. Frater Bovine pericardium versus porcine aortic valve: comparison of tissue biological properties as prosthetic valves Artif Organs 16 1992 361 365
19. D. Mavrilas, J. Kapolos, P.G. Koutsoukos, and D. Dougenis Screening biomaterials with a new in vitro method for potential calcification: porcine aortic valves and bovine pericardium J Mater Sci Mater Med 15 2004 699 704