Download PDF
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019; 67(04): 282-290
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1649513
Original Cardiovascular
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Survival after Aortic Valve Replacement with Bovine or Porcine Valve Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Natalie Glaser
1   Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
2   Department of Cardiology, Stockholm South General Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
,
Veronica Jackson
1   Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
3   Department of Heart and Vascular Theme, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
,
Anders Franco-Cereceda
1   Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
3   Department of Heart and Vascular Theme, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
,
Ulrik Sartipy
1   Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
3   Department of Heart and Vascular Theme, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
› Author Affiliations Funding This work was supported by grants from Karolinska Institutet Foundations and Funds (grant number 2016fobi47721 to US), the Mats Kleberg Foundation (grant number 2017–00096 to US), the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation (grant numbers 20160522 and 20160525 to US), the Swedish Heart and Lung Association (grant number E101/16 to US and NG), Regional ALF agreement between Stockholm County Council and Karolinska Institutet (grant number 20160329 to US), Capio Research Foundation (grant number 2016–2898 to NG), Åke Wiberg Foundation (grant number M16–0081 to US), and Magnus Bergvall Foundation (grant number 2016–01396 to US) as well as a donation from Mr. Fredrik Lundberg (to AF-C).
Further Information

Publication History

20 February 2018

27 March 2018

Publication Date:
17 May 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Abstract

Background Bovine and porcine bioprostheses are commonly used for surgical aortic valve replacement. It is unknown if the long-term survival differs between the two valve types.

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare survival in patients who underwent aortic valve replacement and received a bovine or a porcine prosthesis.

Methods We performed a systematic search of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Cohort studies that compared survival between patients who underwent aortic valve replacement and received either a bovine or a porcine bioprosthesis and that reported overall long-term survival with hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were included. Two authors independently reviewed articles considered for inclusion, extracted the information from each study, and performed the quality assessment. We performed a meta-analysis using a random effects model to calculate the pooled HR (95% CI) for all-cause mortality. We did sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of our findings.

Results Seven studies published between 2010 and 2015 were included, and the combined study population was 49,190 patients. Of these, 32,235 (66%) received a bovine, and 16,955 (34%) received a porcine bioprosthesis. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between patients who received a bovine compared with a porcine bioprosthesis (pooled HR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.92–1.09). Heterogeneity between studies was moderate (55.8%, p = 0.04).

Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest no difference in survival between patients who received a bovine versus a porcine bioprosthesis after aortic valve replacement. Our study provides valuable evidence for the continuing use of both bovine and porcine bioprosthetic valves for surgical aortic valve replacement.

Keywords

aortic valve replacement - bioprosthesis - mortality - meta-analysis

Disclosures

None.


Supplementary Material

 

  • References

  • 1 Glaser N, Jackson V, Holzmann MJ, Franco-Cereceda A, Sartipy U. Aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs. biological prostheses in patients aged 50-69 years. Eur Heart J 2016; 37 (34) 2658-2667
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 SWEDEHEART 2016 Swedish Cardiac Surgery Registry Appendix 2017 http://www.ucr.uu.se/swedeheart/arsrapport-2016/swedeheart-2016-swedish-cardiac-surgery-registry-appendix/download , 2017–11–05
    PubMed
  • 3 Isaacs AJ, Shuhaiber J, Salemi A, Isom OW, Sedrakyan A. National trends in utilization and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 149 (05) 1262-9.e3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Sharma V, Deo SV, Altarabsheh SE, Cho YH, Erwin PJ, Park SJ. Comparison of the early haemodynamics of stented pericardial and porcine aortic valves. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 47 (01) 4-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Chan V, Kulik A, Tran A. , et al. Long-term clinical and hemodynamic performance of the Hancock II versus the Perimount aortic bioprostheses. Circulation 2010; 122 (11, Suppl): S10-S16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ruzicka DJ, Hettich I, Hutter A. , et al. The complete supraannular concept: in vivo hemodynamics of bovine and porcine aortic bioprostheses. Circulation 2009; 120 (11, Suppl): S139-S145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Said SM, Ashikhmina E, Greason KL. , et al. Do pericardial bioprostheses improve outcome of elderly patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?. Ann Thorac Surg 2012; 93 (06) 1868-1874 , discussion 1874–1875
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Dalmau MJ, González-Santos JM, Blázquez JA. , et al. Hemodynamic performance of the Medtronic Mosaic and Perimount Magna aortic bioprostheses: five-year results of a prospectively randomized study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2011; 39 (06) 844-852 , discussion 852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Yap KH, Murphy R, Devbhandari M, Venkateswaran R. Aortic valve replacement: is porcine or bovine valve better?. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2013; 16 (03) 361-373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Andreas M, Wallner S, Ruetzler K. , et al. Comparable long-term results for porcine and pericardial prostheses after isolated aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 48 (04) 557-561
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ganapathi AM, Englum BR, Keenan JE. , et al. Long-term survival after bovine pericardial versus porcine stented bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: does valve choice matter?. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 100 (02) 550-559
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Glaser N, Franco-Cereceda A, Sartipy U. Late survival after aortic valve replacement with the perimount versus the mosaic bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 2014; 97 (04) 1314-1320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Grunkemeier GL, Furnary AP, Wu Y, Wang L, Starr A. Durability of pericardial versus porcine bioprosthetic heart valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012; 144 (06) 1381-1386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hickey GL, Grant SW, Bridgewater B. , et al. A comparison of outcomes between bovine pericardial and porcine valves in 38,040 patients in England and Wales over 10 years. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 47 (06) 1067-1074
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. , PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010; 8 (05) 336-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC. , et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283 (15) 2008-2012
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JP. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 2007; 36 (03) 666-676
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327 (7414): 557-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994; 50 (04) 1088-1101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315 (7109): 629-634
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Banbury MK, Cosgrove III DM, White JA, Blackstone EH, Frater RW, Okies JE. Age and valve size effect on the long-term durability of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 2001; 72 (03) 753-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Forcillo J, Pellerin M, Perrault LP. , et al. Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve in the aortic position: 25-years experience. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 96 (02) 486-493
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 David TE, Armstrong S, Maganti M. Hancock II bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: the gold standard of bioprosthetic valves durability?. Ann Thorac Surg 2010; 90 (03) 775-781
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Jamieson WR, Riess FC, Raudkivi PJ. , et al. Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis: assessment of 12-year performance. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 142 (02) 302-7.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Head SJ, Mokhles MM, Osnabrugge RL. , et al. The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 observational studies comprising 27 186 patients with 133 141 patient-years. Eur Heart J 2012; 33 (12) 1518-1529
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthetic heart valves: selection of the optimal prosthesis and long-term management. Circulation 2009; 119 (07) 1034-1048
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Arsalan M, Walther T. Durability of prostheses for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Nat Rev Cardiol 2016; 13 (06) 360-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar