The LABCOR porcine bioprosthesis demonstrates reliable mid-term clinical outcomes and survival in a medium-risk patient cohort undergoing aortic valve replacement.
Mid-term LABCOR outcomes in AVR appear acceptable; observational data leave open need for randomized long-term comparisons.
Objectives: Between 2004 and 2010 330 patients with a mean age of 75.8 ± 7.2 years and mean logistic EuroSCORE of 8.5% underwent AVR with the LABCOR porcine bioprosthesis in our institution. This paper presents clinical results against the background following a trend towards bovine devices through the last decade. Patients and methods: There were 159 (48.2%) female and 171 (51.8%) male patients. Preoperatively, 69 patients (21%) were in NYHA Class II, 214 (65%) in Class III and 47 (14%) in Class IV. Concomitant Bypass Surgery was performed in 130 cases. Data were obtained during a 6 month interval period through telephone interviews with patients and referring physicians. Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after valvular operations were followed in these interviews. Results: 30-day mortality was 4.5% (n = 15). There was no evidence of valve failure. Survival after a mean follow-up of 5.8 years was 63%. A reoperation rate of 3.6% (n = 12) was found. Reoperation was conducted due to prosthetic endocarditis in 7 cases, due to PVL in 3 cases, due to structural valve deterioration in 1 case and 1 patient showed a ventricular-aortal discontinuity of the muscular septum. 22 patients (39.2%) were in NYHA Class I, 22 (39,%) in Class II, 11 (19.6%) in Class III and 1 patient (1.8%) in Class IV at the time of follow-up. Conclusion: In this middle follow-up term of 8 years of clinical experience in a single center, the LABCOR porcine bioprosthesis shows reliable and satisfying results in a patient group with a medium risk profile. Nevertheless, further long-term assessment and echocardiographic examination is needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schlömicher et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: