• L C Pelletier, M Carrier, Y Leclerc, G Lepage, P deGuise, and I Dyrda.
• Department of Surgery, Institut de Cardiologie de Montréal, Québec, Canada.
• Ann. Thorac. Surg. 1989 Mar 1;47(3):352-61.

AbstractFrom 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 less than 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 less than 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 (10/12 patients). After 6 years, freedom from primary tissue failure of mitral valves was 92% +/- 2% with porcine and 70% +/- 11% with pericardial bioprostheses (p less than 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.

27 keywords...

hide…