Key result
Bovine pericardial bioprostheses were associated with similar rates of all-cause mortality compared to porcine bioprostheses following mitral valve replacement (aHR 1.00; 95% CI 0.87-1.14).
Why the study?
Comparisons of long-term clinical outcomes of mitral valve replacement between bovine pericardial and porcine bioprostheses are conflicting, with limited research in large-scale real-world clinical settings.
Does the use of bovine pericardial bioprostheses compared to porcine bioprostheses improve clinical outcomes in adult patients undergoing mitral valve replacement?
Cohort (n=3,151)
Yes
Does the use of bovine pericardial bioprostheses compared to porcine bioprostheses improve clinical outcomes in adult patients undergoing mitral valve replacement?
Hazard Ratio: 1 (95% CI 0.87–1.14)
There is no significant difference in long-term mortality or valve-related reoperation between bovine pericardial and porcine bioprostheses for mitral valve replacement.
Choice between bovine and porcine valves need not prioritize mortality after MVR; leaves open durability and reoperation risks.
OBJECTIVES: Comparisons of long-term clinical outcomes of mitral valve replacement (MVR) between bovine pericardial and porcine bioprostheses are conflicting, with limited research in large-scale real-world clinical settings. This study examined clinical outcomes in MVR according to bioprosthesis type using a national administrative claims database. METHODS: This study included adult patients undergoing bioprosthetic MVR between 2003 and 2018 using administrative health care data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database. Propensity score matching with competing risk analysis was used to compare the clinical outcomes according to the type of bioprosthesis. The end points were death, cardiac death, and valve-related events, including the incidence of reoperation, endocarditis, systemic thromboembolism, and major bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 3151 patients underwent bioprosthetic MVR with bovine pericardial (n = 1628, 51.7%) or porcine (n = 1523, 48.3%) bioprostheses. After matching, 1170 pairs were included in the final analysis. During follow-up (median 4.49 years, interquartile range 1.87 -8.75 years), death occurred in 1178 patients (6.8%/patient-year), comprising 730 (4.3%/patient-year) cardiac death. No significant differences were noted between the bovine and porcine groups in the cumulative incidences of death from any cause [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.87-1.14], cardiac mortality (aHR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.81-1.14), or reoperation (aHR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.72-1.41). CONCLUSIONS: This study on a nationwide comparison between bovine and porcine bioprostheses in MVR found no significant differences in clinical outcomes including mortality, and valve-related reoperation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Mitral valve replacement (n=3,151). Bovine pericardial bioprosthesis vs. Porcine bioprosthesis was evaluated on Death from any cause (aHR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87-1.14). Bovine pericardial bioprostheses were associated with similar rates of all-cause mortality compared to porcine bioprostheses following mitral valve replacement (aHR 1.00; 95% CI 0.87-1.14).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: