Abstract
BackgroundDebate continues regarding the superiority of porcine vs pericardial bioprostheses, and data relevant to this comparison are scant. This study compared late survival and structural valve deterioration of porcine and pericardial mitral valve prostheses. MethodsAdults undergoing mitral valve replacement with 1 first-generation porcine valve model and 1 pericardial valve line were reviewed from a prospectively maintained institutional database between 1976 and 2020. Multivariable regression and Cox proportional hazards analysis were used to compare late outcomes. ResultsOf 1162 consecutive patients, 612 (53%) received porcine valves and 550 (47%) received pericardial valves. At 10 years, patient survival (porcine, 36% ± 2%; pericardial, 38% ± 3%; P = .5) and cumulative incidence of mitral valve structural deterioration (porcine, 18% ± 2%; pericardial, 19% ± 3%; P = .3) were similar. The structural failure mode was more likely severe mitral stenosis in pericardial valves (35 of 50 [70%] vs 38 of 106 [36%]; P < .001), and it was more likely severe mitral regurgitation in porcine valves (80 of 106 [75%] vs 19 of 50 [38%]; P < .0001). After adjustment, structural deterioration was associated with younger patient age (P < .001) but not valve type. At 10 years, porcine valves demonstrated a higher cumulative incidence of mitral reoperation (19% ± 2% vs 9% ± 2%; P < .001) and reoperation for structural deterioration (15% ± 1% vs 6% ± 2%; P = .007). ConclusionsThis study demonstrated similar rates of 10-year survival and structural deterioration with porcine and pericardial bioprostheses in mitral valve replacement. The study suggests a lack of major improvement in durability of mitral bioprosthetic valves over time. The failure mode may have a greater influence on surgeon decision making regarding valve choice.
Published Version
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