Key result
Structural valve degeneration occurred in 7.2% of patients with the Epic porcine valve and 9.6% with the CEP pericardial valve, with porcine SVD predominantly due to leaflet tearing.
Why the study?
To examine the incidence and modes of bioprosthetic valve failure of the porcine valve in the mitral position and compare them with those of the pericardial valve.
Does the porcine bioprosthetic valve compared to the pericardial valve affect the incidence and modes of structural valve degeneration in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement?
Population
240 patients undergoing mitral valve replacement
Comparison
Epic porcine valve vs CEP pericardial valve
Design
Retrospective cohort study
Follow-up
Median 54.5 months (Epic) and 81.5 months (CEP)
Authors
Loading...
Porcine mitral bioprostheses fail predominantly by leaflet tear versus calcification in pericardial valves; leaves open optimal selection pending randomized durability data.
Cohort (n=240)
Does the porcine bioprosthetic valve compared to the pericardial valve affect the incidence and modes of structural valve degeneration in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 7.2% vs 9.6%
Porcine and pericardial bioprosthetic valves in the mitral position exhibit different modes of structural valve degeneration, with porcine valves prone to leaflet tearing and pericardial valves prone to calcification and adhesion.
Uchino et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Mitral valve replacement (n=240). St. Jude Medical Epic bioprosthesis (porcine valve) vs. Carpentier-Edwards Perimount (CEP) pericardial valve was evaluated on Structural valve degeneration (SVD). Structural valve degeneration occurred in 7.2% of patients with the Epic porcine valve and 9.6% with the CEP pericardial valve, with porcine SVD predominantly due to leaflet tearing.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: