Key result
In patients undergoing bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement, the use of bovine pericardial valves was associated with a significantly lower late (>8 years) mortality risk compared to porcine valves (HR 0.61).
Why the study?
Controversy remains over whether bovine pericardial or porcine valves are superior in the setting of aortic valve replacement.
Does bovine pericardial valve replacement improve survival or reduce structural valve deterioration compared to porcine valves in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement?
Cohort (n=636)
No
Does bovine pericardial valve replacement improve survival or reduce structural valve deterioration compared to porcine valves in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement?
Hazard Ratio: 0.61 (95% CI 0.41–0.9)
Absolute Event Rate: 7.9% vs 8.8%
p-value: p=0.01
In patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement, bovine pericardial valves are associated with superior postoperative hemodynamics and improved late survival (>8 years) compared to porcine valves, though structural valve deterioration rates were similar.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Should not yet change bioprosthetic valve selection in SAVR; leaves open confirmation of late survival benefit with bovine pericardial valves.
Shin et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Severe aortic valve disease (n=636). Bovine pericardial valve vs. Porcine valve was evaluated on Late all-cause mortality (>8 years) (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41-0.90, p=0.01). In patients undergoing bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement, the use of bovine pericardial valves was associated with a significantly lower late (>8 years) mortality risk compared to porcine valves (HR 0.61).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: