Comparison of Long-Term Performance of Porcine versus Pericardial Bioprostheses

Abstract

Background The long-term comparative results between porcine and pericardial bioprostheses for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are debated. Scarce information exists concerning direct comparative evaluation among contemporary devices. We compared late and very late results in a single center series (n = 3,983 cases).

Methods From a prospectively collected database we included 3,983 recipients of two current porcine bioprostheses (porcine group) or one current pericardial bioprosthesis (pericardial group). We evaluated the long-term freedom from structural valve deterioration (SVD) with both Kaplan–Meier and competing risk methods (primary endpoint). We distinguished between SVD and patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM). Secondary endpoints were late survival, freedom from valve-related mortality, freedom from reoperation for SVD, freedom from nonstructural valve dysfunction (NSVD) and freedom from endocarditis.

Results Median follow-up was 10.4 years (99.7% complete, 32,219 patients/years). Overall survival was significantly lower in the porcine group (p = 0.002), related to baseline intergroup differences. At 10 years, Kaplan–Meier freedom from SVD was significantly better in the porcine group (98.0% ± 0.3 vs. 96.3% ± 0.8; p = 0.003). Competing risk freedom from SVD at 10 years was 98.6% ± 0.2 and 97.2% ± 0.6 (porcine and pericardial group, respectively; p = 0.001). The porcine group displayed a higher rate of PPM.

Conclusion Despite the augmented risk of PPM compared with pericardial valves, in this series porcine bioprostheses seem to perform better concerning protection from late (>10 years) SVD. Smaller valve sizes (19–21 mm) may negatively impact the SVD risk among porcine valves but not among pericardial valves. These elements need to be considered for valve choice and surgical strategy in SAVR candidates according to their life expectancy, clinical context, and annulus size.

Keywords

aortic valve - bioprosthesis - structural valve dysfunction - patient-prosthesis mismatch

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 24. August 2024

Angenommen: 17. Dezember 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
07. Januar 2025

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
05. Februar 2025

• References

• 1 Kanwar A, Thaden JJ, Nkomo VT. Management of Patients With Aortic Valve Stenosis. Mayo Clin Proc 2018; 93 (04) 488-508
• 2 Beyersdorf F, Baldus S, Bauersachs J. et al. ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease: developed by the Task Force for the management of valvular heart disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Euro J Cardio-Thorac Surg 2021; 60 (04) 727-800
• 3 Marco R, Maurizio T, Andrea G. et al. The evolution of surgical valves. Cardiovasc Med 2017; 20 (12) 285-292
• 4 Chaikof EL. The development of prosthetic heart valves–lessons in form and function. N Engl J Med 2007; 357 (14) 1368-1371
• 5 Chambers JB, Rajani R, Parkin D. 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 2008; 136 (05) 1142-1148
• 6 Dalmau MJ, González-Santos JM, Blázquez JA. et al. Hemodynamic performance of the Medtronic Mosaic and Perimount Magna aortic bioprostheses: five-year results of a prospectively randomized study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2011; 39 (06) 844-852 , discussion 852
• 7 Sharma V, Deo SV, Altarabsheh SE, Cho YH, Erwin PJ, Park SJ. Comparison of the early haemodynamics of stented pericardial and porcine aortic valves. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 47 (01) 4-10
• 8 Eichinger WB, Botzenhardt F, Keithahn A. et al. Exercise hemodynamics of bovine versus porcine bioprostheses: a prospective randomized comparison of the mosaic and perimount aortic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005; 129 (05) 1056-1063
• 9 Anselmi A, Ruggieri VG, Belhaj Soulami R. et al. Hemodynamic results and mid-term follow-up of 850 19 to 23 mm Perimount Magna Ease Valves. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019; 67 (04) 274-281
• 10 Dvir D, Bourguignon T, Otto CM. et al. VIVID (Valve in Valve International Data) Investigators. Standardized definition of structural valve degeneration for surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valves. Circulation 2018; 137 (04) 388-399
• 11 Tasca G, Brunelli F, Cirillo M. et al. Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on left ventricular mass regression following aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 2005; 79 (02) 505-510
• 12 Anselmi A, Flécher E, Ruggieri VG. et al. Long-term results of the medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis in the aortic position. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 147 (06) 1884-1891
• 13 Matsumoto Y, Fujita T, Hata H, Shimahara Y, Sato S, Kobayashi J. Hemodynamic performance and durability of Mosaic bioprostheses for aortic valve replacement, up to 13 years. Circ J 2015; 79 (05) 1044-1051
• 14 Jamieson WRE, Lewis CTP, Sakwa MP. et al. St Jude Medical Epic porcine bioprosthesis: results of the regulatory evaluation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 141 (06) 1449-54.e2
• 15 Lehmann S, Merk DR, Etz CD. et al. Porcine xenograft for aortic, mitral and double valve replacement: long-term results of 2544 consecutive patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 49 (04) 1150-1156
• 16 Thorp SD, Khazaal J, Yu G, Parker JL, Timek TA. Magna Ease bioprosthetic aortic valve: mid-term haemodynamic outcomes in 1126 patients. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2021; 32 (06) 839-845
• 17 Rajab TK, Ali JM, Hernández-Sánchez J. et al. Mid-term follow-up after aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier Edwards Magna Ease prosthesis. J Cardiothorac Surg 2020; 15 (01) 209
• 18 Anselmi A, Ruggieri VG, Lelong B. et al. Mid-term durability of the trifecta bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2017; 153 (01) 21-28.e1
• 19 Yokoyama Y, Kuno T, Takagi H, Fukuhara S. Trifecta versus perimount bioprosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement; systematic review and meta-analysis. J Card Surg 2021; 36 (11) 4335-4342
• 20 Akins CW, Miller DC, Turina MI. et al. Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2008; 33 (04) 523-528
• 21 Généreux P, Piazza N, Alu MC. et al. VARC-3 Writing Committee. Valve academic research consortium 3: updated endpoint definitions for aortic valve clinical research. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021; 77 (21) 2717-2746
• 22 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 2015; 47 (06) 1067-1074
• 23 Langanay T, Rouzé S, Tomasi J. et al. Conventional aortic valve replacement in 2005 elderly patients: a 32-year experience. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2018; 54 (03) 446-452
• 24 Andreas M, Wallner S, Ruetzler K. et al. Comparable long-term results for porcine and pericardial prostheses after isolated aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 48 (04) 557-561
• 25 Said SM, Ashikhmina E, Greason KL. et al. Do pericardial bioprostheses improve outcome of elderly patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?. Ann Thorac Surg 2012; 93 (06) 1868-1874 , discussion 1874–1875
• 26 Anselmi A, Flecher E, Chabanne C. et al. Long-term follow-up of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in patients aged ≤60 years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2017; 154 (05) 1534-1541.e4
• 27 Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R, Simard S, Doyle D, Pibarot P. Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation 2003; 108 (08) 983-988
• 28 Jamieson WE, Germann E, Aupart MR, Neville PH, Marchand MA, Fradet GJ. 15-Year comparison of supra-annular porcine and PERIMOUNT aortic bioprostheses. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann 2006; 14 (03) 200-205
• 29 Ruggieri VG, Flecher E, Anselmi A. et al. Long-term results of the carpentier-edwards supraannular aortic valve prosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 2012; 94 (04) 1191-1197
• 30 Reichenspurner H, Weinhold C, Nollert G. et al. Comparison of porcine biological valves with pericardial valves–a 12-year clinical experience with 1123 bio-prostheses. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1995; 43 (01) 19-26
• 31 Webb J, Parkin D, Tøndel K, Simitsis P, Roxburgh J, Chambers JB. A comparison of early redo surgery rates in Mosaic porcine and Perimount bovine pericardial valves. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2018; 54 (04) 724-728
• 32 Ganapathi AM, Englum BR, Keenan JE. et al. Long-term survival after bovine pericardial versus porcine stented bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: does valve choice matter?. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 100 (02) 550-559
• 33 Sá MP, Jacquemyn X, Van den Eynde J. et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch after surgical aortic valve replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data of 122 989 patients with 592952 patient-years. J Am Heart Assoc 2024; 13 (07) e033176