Long-Term Survival Benefits of Porcine versus Pericardial Bioprostheses in Elderly Patients Undergoing Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement: A 32-Year Study

被引:0
作者
Ebra, George [1 ]
Traad, Ernest A. [2 ]
Kurlansky, Paul A. [2 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Premier Cardiovasc Surg, Tampa, FL 33607 USA
[2] Cardiac Thorac Vasc Surg Assoc, Miami, FL 33140 USA
[3] Columbia Univ, Div Cardiac Surg, New York, NY 10032 USA
[4] Columbia Univ, Dept Surg, Ctr Innovat & Outcomes Res, New York, NY 10032 USA
关键词
elderly; aortic valve disease; isolated aortic valve replacement; propensity score-matching; EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION; AMERICAN SOCIETY; BOVINE; PROSTHESES; OUTCOMES; ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; RECOMMENDATIONS; PERIMOUNT; MISMATCH; CHOICE;
D O I
10.59958/hsf.6917
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: The elderly population is growing at an unprecedented rate. Aortic valve disease increases with age. Bioprostheses are the valves of choice for older patients; however, the optimal tissue valve remains undetermined. The purpose of this investigation was to perform a life-of-patient survival comparison of the prototypical porcine and pericardial prostheses in elderly patients. Methods: The study population (N = 1480) consisted of patients 65 years of age and older who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement from 1990 through 2005 with a CarpentierEdwards Porcine (n = 650) or Pericardial (n = 830) bioprosthesis. Propensity score-matched groups were created. Results: Valve selection was not associated with operative mortality. Survival estimates at 10 years were better for Pericardial (41.8%; 95% CI: 37.9 to 45.7) than Porcine (32.6%; 95% CI: 28.8 to 36.3); and 5.2% (95% CI: 3.2 to 7.1) versus 2.0%; (95% CI: 0.8 to 3.2) at 20 years (p < 0.001). E-value analysis found minimal influence of unknown study confounders. Factors associated with long-term mortality were porcine valve (p < 0.001), age (p < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (p < 0.001), preop renal insufficiency (p < 0.001), peripheral artery disease (p = 0.011), congestive heart failure (p = 0.003), New York Heart Association Class III or IV (p = 0.004), surgical history-reoperation (p = 0.012), transient ischemic attack (p = 0.009), prolonged ventilation (p = 0.010), postop renal insufficiency (p < 0.001), and atrial fibrillation (p = 0.009). The indexed Effective Orifice Area (EOAi) was assessed and did not influence observed long-term survival differences. Conclusions: This unusual lifetime study provided substantial evidence for the superiority of the pericardial over the porcine bioprosthesis in the aortic position in elderly patients. It demonstrated enhanced long-term survival benefits for elderly patients without any increase in perioperative mortality. It is intended to inform future investigation into aortic valve design.
引用
收藏
页码:E869 / E879
页数:11
相关论文
共 30 条
  • [1] Comparable long-term results for porcine and pericardial prostheses after isolated aortic valve replacement
    Andreas, Martin
    Wallner, Stephanie
    Ruetzler, Kurt
    Wiedemann, Dominik
    Ehrlich, Marek
    Heinze, Georg
    Binder, Thomas
    Moritz, Anton
    Hiesmayr, Michael J.
    Kocher, Alfred
    Laufer, Guenther
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY, 2015, 48 (04) : 557 - 561
  • [2] Asimakopoulos G, 1997, CIRCULATION, V96, P3403
  • [3] STS Adult Cardiac Surgery Database: 2021 Update on Outcomes, Quality, and Research
    Bowdish, Michael E.
    D'Agostino, Richard S.
    Thourani, Vinod H.
    Schwann, Thomas A.
    Krohn, Carole
    Desai, Nimesh
    Shahian, David M.
    Fernandez, Felix G.
    Badhwar, Vinay
    [J]. ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2021, 111 (06) : 1770 - 1780
  • [4] Center for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, 2019, Valvular heart disease
  • [5] Long-Term Clinical and Hemodynamic Performance of the Hancock II Versus the Perimount Aortic Bioprostheses
    Chan, Vincent
    Kulik, Alexander
    Tran, Anthony
    Hendry, Paul
    Masters, Roy
    Mesana, Thierry G.
    Ruel, Marc
    [J]. CIRCULATION, 2010, 122 (11) : S10 - S16
  • [6] Long-Term Survival After Bovine Pericardial Versus Porcine Stented Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: Does Valve Choice Matter?
    Ganapathi, Asvin M.
    Englum, Brian R.
    Keenan, Jeffrey E.
    Schechter, Matthew A.
    Wang, Hanghang
    Smith, Peter K.
    Glower, Donald D.
    Hughes, G. Chad
    [J]. ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2015, 100 (02) : 550 - 559
  • [7] Survival after Aortic Valve Replacement with Bovine or Porcine Valve Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Glaser, Natalie
    Jackson, Veronica
    Franco-Cereceda, Anders
    Sartipy, Ulrik
    [J]. THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGEON, 2019, 67 (04) : 282 - 290
  • [8] Late Survival After Aortic Valve Replacement With the Perimount Versus the Mosaic Bioprosthesis
    Glaser, Natalie
    Franco-Cereceda, Anders
    Sartipy, Ulrik
    [J]. ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2014, 97 (04) : 1314 - 1321
  • [9] Durability of pericardial versus porcine bioprosthetic heart valves
    Grunkemeier, Gary L.
    Furnary, Anthony P.
    Wu, YingXing
    Wang, Lian
    Starr, Albert
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2012, 144 (06) : 1381 - 1386
  • [10] The impact of prosthesispatient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 observational studies comprising 27 186 patients with 133 141 patient-years
    Head, Stuart J.
    Mokhles, Mostafa M.
    Osnabrugge, Ruben L. J.
    Pibarot, Philippe
    Mack, Michael J.
    Takkenberg, Johanna J. M.
    Bogers, Ad J. J. C.
    Kappetein, Arie Pieter
    [J]. EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2012, 33 (12) : 1518 - 1529