Durability of pericardial versus porcine aortic valves

OBJECTIVES This study compares the long-term performance of the Carpentier-Edwards (CE) porcine bioprosthesis and the CE pericardial bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR). BACKGROUND With new bioprostheses on the horizon, there is renewed interest in how the long-term durability of current pericardial bioprostheses compares with the traditional porcine bioprosthesis. METHODS We reviewed 518 AVR with CE porcine valves from 1974 to 1996 and 1,021 AVR with CE pericardial valves from 1991 to 2002. The age distribution and clinical profiles were similar for both groups. The total (mean) follow-up was 3,322 (6.4) years for porcine and 2,556 (2.5) years for pericardial. RESULTS Long-term mortality was similar (p = 0.29) for porcine and pericardial, with 10-year survival rates of 34 +/- 2% and 38 +/- 6%, respectively. Ten-year freedom from major adverse cardiac events was also similar for both (respectively): thromboembolism (80 +/- 2% and 87 +/- 2%; p = 0.24); endocarditis (98 +/- 1% and 99 +/- 1%; p = 0.30). However, 10-year freedom from explant was lower for porcine (90 +/- 2%) than for pericardial (97 +/- 1%, p = 0.04). Reasons for explant for porcine were structural valve deterioration (SVD) (n = 25), endocarditis (n = 4), and periprosthetic leak (n = 2). The reasons for explant for pericardial were SVD (n = 4), endocarditis (n = 4) and periprosthetic leak (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS The current CE pericardial valve offers better midterm durability than the traditional CE porcine valve. Its freedom from SVD and reoperation makes it our current bioprosthesis of choice for AVR in appropriately selected patients. (C) 2004 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.