Key result
Porcine mitral valve replacement showed no significant difference in long-term survival compared to bovine valves after propensity matching (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.81-1.17; P=0.756).
Why the study?
Recent guidelines recommending MVR for severe secondary mitral regurgitation increased bioprosthesis use, but data on how longitudinal outcomes vary by prosthesis type were limited.
Does bovine bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement improve long-term survival compared to porcine valves in patients undergoing MVR?
Cohort (n=1,284)
Yes
Does bovine bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement improve long-term survival compared to porcine valves in patients undergoing MVR?
Hazard Ratio: 0.97 (95% CI 0.81–1.17)
p-value: p=0.756
In patients undergoing bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement, there is no significant difference in long-term survival or risk of reoperation between bovine and porcine valves.
Supports flexibility in mitral prosthesis selection; leaves open randomized confirmation of material equivalence.
Introduction. Recent national guidelines recommending mitral valve replacement (MVR) for severe secondary mitral regurgitation have resulted in an increased utilization of mitral bioprosthesis. There is a paucity of data on how longitudinal clinical outcomes vary by prosthesis type. We examined long-term survival and risk of reoperation between patients having bovine vs. porcine MVR. Study Design. A retrospective analysis of MVR or MVR + coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) from 2001 to 2017 among seven hospitals reporting to a prospectively maintained clinical registry was conducted. The analytic cohort included 1,284 patients undergoing MVR (801 bovine and 483 porcine). Baseline comorbidities were balanced using 1 : 1 propensity score matching with 432 patients in each group. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points included in-hospital morbidity, 30-day mortality, length of stay, and risk of reoperation. Results. In the overall cohort, patients receiving porcine valves were more likely to have diabetes (19% bovine vs. 29% porcine; p < 0.001 ), COPD (20% bovine vs. 27% porcine; p = 0.008 ), dialysis or creatinine >2 mg/dL (4% bovine vs. 7% porcine; p = 0.03 ), and coronary artery disease (65% bovine vs. 77% porcine; p < 0.001 ). There was no difference in stroke, acute kidney injury, mediastinitis, pneumonia, length of stay, in-hospital morbidity, or 30-day mortality. In the overall cohort, there was a difference in long-term survival (porcine HR 1.17 (95% CI: 1.00–1.37; p = 050 )). However, there was no difference in reoperation (porcine HR 0.56 (95% CI: 0.23–1.32; p = 0.185 )). In the propensity-matched cohort, patients were matched on all baseline characteristics. There was no difference in postoperative complications or in-hospital morbidity and 30-day mortality. After 1 : 1 propensity score matching, there was no difference in long-term survival (porcine HR 0.97 (95% CI: 0.81–1.17; p = 0.756 )) or risk of reoperation (porcine HR 0.54 (95% CI: 0.20–1.47; p = 0.225 )). Conclusions. In this multicenter analysis of patients undergoing bioprosthetic MVR, there was no difference in perioperative complications and risk of reoperation of long-term survival after matching.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Broadwin et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in severe secondary mitral regurgitation requiring mitral valve replacement (n=1,284). Porcine mitral valve replacement vs. Bovine mitral valve replacement was evaluated on all-cause mortality (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81-1.17, p=0.756). Porcine mitral valve replacement showed no significant difference in long-term survival compared to bovine valves after propensity matching (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.81-1.17; P=0.756).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: