Abstract
ObjectiveAortic valve replacement with Braile bovine pericardial prosthesis has been routinely done at the Heart Institute of the Universidade de São Paulo Medical School since 2006. The objective of this study is to analyze the results of Braile Biomédica® aortic bioprosthesis in patients with aortic valve disease.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated 196 patients with aortic valve disease submitted to aortic valve replacement with Braile Biomédica® bovine pericardial prosthesis, between 2006 and 2010. Mean age was 59.41±16.34 years and 67.3% were male. Before surgery, 73.4% of patients were in NYHA functional class III or IV.ResultsHospital mortality was 8.16% (16 patients). Linearized rates of mortality, endocarditis, reintervention, and structural dysfunction were 1.065%, 0.91%, 0.68% and 0.075% patients/year, respectively. Actuarial survival was 90.59±2.56% in 88 months. Freedom from reintervention, endocarditis and structural dysfunction was respectively 91.38±2.79%, 89.84±2.92% and 98.57±0.72% in 88 months.ConclusionThe Braile Biomédica® pericardial aortic valve prosthesis demonstrated actuarial survival and durability similar to that described in the literature, but further follow up is required to assess the incidence of prosthetic valve endocarditis and structural dysfunction in the future.
Highlights
Bovine pericardial bioprostheses have been used for aortic valve replacement since the early 70’s, when first generation of bioprostheses became commercially available
The Braile Biomédica® pericardial aortic valve prosthesis demonstrated actuarial survival and durability similar to that described in the literature, but further follow up is required to assess the incidence of prosthetic valve endocarditis and structural dysfunction in the future
Métodos: Foram analisados, retrospectivamente, 196 pacientes portadores de valvopatia aórtica submetidos à troca valvar aórtica por prótese biológica de pericárdio bovino Braile Biomé
Summary
Bovine pericardial bioprostheses have been used for aortic valve replacement since the early 70’s, when first generation of bioprostheses became commercially available. Description[1], clinical use, and initial results have been known since . A variety of models and materials have been introduced for everyday use and evaluated for long-term use[2,3]. The choice of which prosthesis to use – biological or mechanic – was not associated to a significant improvement in survival[4,5]. In terms of freedom from reintervention during a 20-year follow-up, bioprostheses were inferior compared to mechanical prostheses[5]. The is no consense in literature regarding long-term results of bioprosthesis, which vary by age group, anatomic implant position or materials used, and by unique manufacturing and preservation techniques used by each manufacturer
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
