Key result
In patients over 70 years old, the Mitroflow A12 pericardial bioprosthesis showed suboptimal durability, with freedom from structural valve dysfunction of 95% at 5 years and 55.8% at 10 years.
Why the study?
What is the long-term durability and rate of structural valve dysfunction of the Mitroflow A12 pericardial bioprosthesis in patients over 70 years old?
Cohort (n=491)
What is the long-term durability and rate of structural valve dysfunction of the Mitroflow A12 pericardial bioprosthesis in patients over 70 years old?
The Mitroflow A12 pericardial bioprosthesis demonstrates suboptimal long-term durability in elderly patients, with high rates of structural valve deterioration by 10 years.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Caution advised selecting Mitroflow A12 for patients >70; observational data leaves open need for comparative durability trials.
BACKGROUND: We report our experience in the elderly with aortic valve replacement using the Mitroflow A12 pericardial bioprosthesis. METHODS: From January 1993 to January 2006, 491 patients over the age of 70 years received an aortic Mitroflow A12 bioprosthesis implantation. Concomitant procedures included coronary artery bypass grafting in 20% of patients. All patients had routine postoperative Echo-Doppler studies at discharge, one month and a mean of 11.1 months after surgery and annually thereafter. RESULTS: Twenty (4%) patients underwent a second aortic valve replacement due to bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (Group 2). Calcified stenosis was the most common finding at reoperation (98%). Median time to valve reoperation was 76 months. Of patients requiring reoperation, median age at first and second implantation was 73 (70-78) and 79 (76-83) years, respectively. For all patients, freedom from structural valve dysfunction (SVD) was 95+/-3% at 5 years and 55.8+/-2% at 10 years. Bioprosthetic valve deterioration was identified in 27 patients (Group 1). Median age of these patients at first operation and at diagnosis of deterioration by echo was 75 (70-84) and 77 (70-82) years, respectively. The median interval between operation and detection of bioprosthesis valve deterioration was 46 months. Among the total patient population, freedom from bioprosthetic deterioration was 85.7+/-2% at 5 years and 33.5+/-4% at 10 years. CONCLUSION: The Mitroflow A12 pericardial bioprosthesis provides less than optimal performance in elderly patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Álvarez et al. (2009) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve replacement (n=491). Mitroflow A12 pericardial bioprosthesis was evaluated on Freedom from structural valve dysfunction (SVD) at 10 years. In patients over 70 years old, the Mitroflow A12 pericardial bioprosthesis showed suboptimal durability, with freedom from structural valve dysfunction of 95% at 5 years and 55.8% at 10 years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: