Key result
The choice of a porcine or bovine pericardial bioprosthesis in the mitral position did not significantly affect midterm survival (p=0.268) or incidence of cardiac death (p=0.097).
Why the study?
Reports of midterm outcomes after mitral valve replacement with a 25-mm bioprosthesis in a large patient series were lacking.
Does the choice of porcine versus bovine pericardial bioprosthesis affect midterm survival and cardiac death in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement?
Cohort (n=467)
Does the choice of porcine versus bovine pericardial bioprosthesis affect midterm survival and cardiac death in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement?
p-value: p = .268 and p = .097
The choice between porcine and bovine pericardial bioprostheses, including 25-mm sizes, does not significantly affect midterm survival or cardiac death in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Should not yet change practice in mitral bioprosthesis selection; leaves open long-term durability and randomized confirmation.
Tsubota et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Mitral valve replacement (n=467). Porcine bioprosthesis vs. Bovine pericardial bioprosthesis was evaluated on Midterm survival and incidence of cardiac death (p=p = .268 and p = .097). The choice of a porcine or bovine pericardial bioprosthesis in the mitral position did not significantly affect midterm survival (p=0.268) or incidence of cardiac death (p=0.097).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: