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

This Article Full Text (PDF) References 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 Author home page(s): Michel Carrier Yves Leclerc Gilles Lepage 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.

Ann Thorac Surg 1989;47:352-361
© 1989 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

---

Articles

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

Departments of Surgery and Medicine, Institut de Cardiologie de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada

^_* Address reprint requests to Dr Pelletier, Department of Surgery, Institut de Cardiologie de Montréal, 5000 Belanger St E, Montréal, Que, Canada H1T 1C8.

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 < 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 < 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 ([equation] patients). After 6 years, freedom from primary tissue failure of mitral valves was 92% ± 2% with porcine and 70% ± 11% with pericardial bioprostheses (p < 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]

				J. M. Bernal, J. M. Rabasa, R. Lopez, J. Francisco Nistal, R. Muniz, and J. M. Revuelta Durability of the Carpentier-Edwards porcine bioprosthesis: Role of age and valve position Ann. Thorac. Surg., August 1, 1995; 60(suppl_2): S248 - S252. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Conrad Pelletier, M. Carrier, Y. Leclerc, and I. Dyrda The carpentier-edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: Clinical experience with 600 patients Ann. Thorac. Surg., August 1, 1995; 60(suppl_2): S297 - S302. [Abstract] [PDF]

				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]

				P. Stassano, C. Gagliardi, and N. Spampinato Porcine versus pericardial bioprostheses Ann. Thorac. Surg., May 1, 1990; 49(5): 849 - 851. [PDF]