Late Survival After Aortic Valve Replacement With the Perimount Versus the Mosaic Bioprosthesis

Abstract

The objective was to compare late survival after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a Carpentier-Edwards Perimount (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) versus a Mosaic bioprosthesis (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, MN). Secondary objectives were to compare early mortality, the rate of reoperation, and the effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on late survival. The design was a population-based cohort study including all patients who underwent AVR with a Perimount or Mosaic bioprosthesis at our institution between 2002 and 2010. Baseline, operative characteristics and clinical outcomes were collected from patient charts and national registers. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. We analyzed the unadjusted and multivariable adjusted association between valve type and late survival. In total, 1,219 patients received the Perimount (n=864) or the Mosaic (n=355) bioprosthesis. During a mean follow-up of 4.2 and 6.9 years, there were 193 and 177 deaths in the Perimount and Mosaic groups, respectively. The unadjusted 1-, 5-, and 8-year survival was 93%, 78%, and 63%, respectively, in the Perimount group and 92%, 80%, and 57%, respectively, in the Mosaic group (p=0.971).There was no significant association between valve choice and all-cause mortality in the multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.11). Freedom from aortic valve reoperation was similar between the groups. No significant association was found between severe PPM and late mortality. We found no significant difference in late survival after AVR with a Perimount bioprosthesis compared with a Mosaic bioprosthesis. Even though severe PPM was more common in the Mosaic group, it did not affect the late survival or the frequency of reoperation.