Key result
Bovine pericardial valves had lower 10-year rates of moderate or greater structural valve deterioration (13% vs 29.8%) and haemodynamic deterioration (3.8% vs 19.8%) compared to porcine valves.
Why the study?
The study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of bovine pericardial versus porcine bioprosthetic valves based on structural valve deterioration and valve haemodynamic deterioration in the aortic position.
Does a bovine pericardial valve reduce structural and haemodynamic valve deterioration compared to a porcine valve in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Population
520 patients undergoing AVR (135 propensity score-matched pairs)
Comparison
Bovine pericardial valve vs porcine valve
Design
Propensity score-matched observational cohort study
Follow-up
Median 8.2 years (interquartile range, 5.4-11.3)
Authors
Loading...
May support bovine pericardial valves for AVR durability; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Cohort (n=520)
Does a bovine pericardial valve reduce structural and haemodynamic valve deterioration compared to a porcine valve in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 13% vs 29.8%
Bovine pericardial valves are associated with significantly lower rates of moderate or greater structural and hemodynamic valve deterioration at 10 years compared to porcine valves in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement.
Jung et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve replacement (n=520). Bovine pericardial valve vs. Porcine valve was evaluated on Moderate or greater structural valve deterioration (SVD) at 10 years. Bovine pericardial valves had lower 10-year rates of moderate or greater structural valve deterioration (13% vs 29.8%) and haemodynamic deterioration (3.8% vs 19.8%) compared to porcine valves.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: