Long-Term Survival Benefits of Porcine versus Pericardial Bioprostheses in Elderly Patients Undergoing Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement: A 32-Year Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59958/hsf.6917Keywords:
elderly, aortic valve disease, isolated aortic valve replacement, propensity score-matchingAbstract
Background: The elderly population is growing at an unprecedented rate. Aortic valve disease increases with age. Bioprostheses are the valves of choice for older patients; however, the optimal tissue valve remains undetermined. The purpose of this investigation was to perform a life-of-patient survival comparison of the prototypical porcine and pericardial prostheses in elderly patients. Methods: The study population (N = 1480) consisted of patients 65 years of age and older who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement from 1990 through 2005 with a Carpentier-Edwards Porcine (n = 650) or Pericardial (n = 830) bioprosthesis. Propensity score-matched groups were created. Results: Valve selection was not associated with operative mortality. Survival estimates at 10 years were better for Pericardial (41.8%; 95% CI: 37.9 to 45.7) than Porcine (32.6%; 95% CI: 28.8 to 36.3); and 5.2% (95% CI: 3.2 to 7.1) versus 2.0%; (95% CI: 0.8 to 3.2) at 20 years (p < 0.001). E-value analysis found minimal influence of unknown study confounders. Factors associated with long-term mortality were porcine valve (p < 0.001), age (p < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (p < 0.001), preop renal insufficiency (p < 0.001), peripheral artery disease (p = 0.011), congestive heart failure (p = 0.003), New York Heart Association Class III or IV (p = 0.004), surgical history-reoperation (p = 0.012), transient ischemic attack (p = 0.009), prolonged ventilation (p = 0.010), postop renal insufficiency (p < 0.001), and atrial fibrillation (p = 0.009). The indexed Effective Orifice Area (EOAi) was assessed and did not influence observed long-term survival differences. Conclusions: This unusual lifetime study provided substantial evidence for the superiority of the pericardial over the porcine bioprosthesis in the aortic position in elderly patients. It demonstrated enhanced long-term survival benefits for elderly patients without any increase in perioperative mortality. It is intended to inform future investigation into aortic valve design.
References
Rostagno C. Heart valve disease in elderly. World Journal of Cardiology. 2019; 11: 71–83.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention. Valvular heart disease. 2019. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/valvular_disease.htm (Accessed: 7 July 2022).
Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP 3rd, Gentile F, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2021; 77: e25–e197.
Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, Milojevic M, Baldus S, Bauersachs J, et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. European Heart Journal. 2022; 43: 561–632.
Tam DY, Rocha RV, Wijeysundera HC, Austin PC, Dvir D, Fremes SE. Surgical valve selection in the era of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2020; 159: 416–427.e8.
Chan V, Kulik A, Tran A, Hendry P, Masters R, Mesana TG, et al. Long-term clinical and hemodynamic performance of the Hancock II versus the Perimount aortic bioprostheses. Circulation. 2010; 122: S10–S16.
Said SM, Ashikhmina E, Greason KL, Suri RM, Park SJ, Daly RC, et al. Do pericardial bioprostheses improve outcome of elderly patients undergoing aortic valve replacement? The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2012; 93: 1868–1875.
Grunkemeier GL, Furnary AP, Wu Y, Wang L, Starr A. Durability of pericardial versus porcine bioprosthetic heart valves. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2012; 144: 1381–1386.
Glaser N, Franco-Cereceda A, Sartipy U. Late survival after aortic valve replacement with the perimount versus the mosaic bioprosthesis. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2014; 97: 1314–1320.
Andreas M, Wallner S, Ruetzler K, Wiedemann D, Ehrlich M, Heinze G, et al. Comparable long-term results for porcine and pericardial prostheses after isolated aortic valve replacement. European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery: Official Journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery. 2015; 48: 557–561.
Hickey GL, Grant SW, Bridgewater B, Kendall S, Bryan AJ, Kuo J, et al. A comparison of outcomes between bovine pericardial and porcine valves in 38,040 patients in England and Wales over 10 years. European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery: Official Journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery. 2015; 47: 1067–1074.
Ganapathi AM, Englum BR, Keenan JE, Schechter MA, Wang H, Smith PK, et al. Long-Term Survival After Bovine Pericardial Versus Porcine Stented Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: Does Valve Choice Matter? The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2015; 100: 550–559.
Yap KH, Murphy R, Devbhandari M, Venkateswaran R. Aortic valve replacement: is porcine or bovine valve better? Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery. 2013; 16: 361–373.
Magliano CAS, Saraiva RM, Azevedo VMP, Innocenzi AM, Tura BR, Santos M. Efficacy of carpentier-edwards pericardial prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2015; 31: 19–26.
Glaser N, Jackson V, Franco-Cereceda A, Sartipy U. Survival after Aortic Valve Replacement with Bovine or Porcine Valve Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon. 2019; 67: 282–290.
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983; 70: 41–55.
VanderWeele TJ, Ding P. Sensitivity Analysis in Observational Research: Introducing the E-Value. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2017; 167: 268–274.
The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database Data Collection. 2022. Available at: https://www.sts.org/registries-research-center/sts-national-database/adult-cardiac-surgery-database/data-collection (Accessed: 27 February 2022).
Zoghbi WA, Chambers JB, Dumesnil JG, Foster E, Gottdiener JS, Grayburn PA, et al. Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and doppler ultrasound: a report From the American Society of Echocardiography's Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Task Force on Prosthetic Valves, developed in conjunction with the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Committee, Cardiac Imaging Committee of the American Heart Association, the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography, endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography, and Canadian Society of Echocardiography. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography: Official Publication of the American Society of Echocardiography. 2009; 22: 975–1014.
Lancellotti P, Pibarot P, Chambers J, Edvardsen T, Delgado V, Dulgheru R, et al. Recommendations for the imaging assessment of prosthetic heart valves: a report from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging endorsed by the Chinese Society of Echocardiography, the Inter-American Society of Echocardiography, and the Brazilian Department of Cardiovascular Imaging. European Heart Journal. Cardiovascular Imaging. 2016; 17: 589–590.
Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2000; 36: 1131–1141.
Mori M, Gupta A, Wang Y, Vahl T, Nazif T, Kirtane AJ, et al. Trends in Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Among Older Adults in the United States. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2021; 78: 2161–2172.
Persson M, Glaser N, Franco-Cereceda A, Nilsson J, Holzmann MJ, Sartipy U. Porcine vs Bovine Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves: Long-Term Clinical Results. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2021; 111: 529–535.
Jamieson SW, Madani MM. The choice of valve protheses. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2004; 44: 389–390.
Bowdish ME, D'Agostino RS, Thourani VH, Schwann TA, Krohn C, Desai N, et al. STS Adult Cardiac Surgery Database: 2021 Update on Outcomes, Quality, and Research. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2021; 111: 1770–1780.
Kvidal P, Bergström R, Hörte LG, Ståhle E. Observed and relative survival after aortic valve replacement. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2000; 35: 747–756.
Asimakopoulos G, Edwards MB, Taylor KM. Aortic valve replacement in patients 80 years of age and older: survival and cause of death based on 1100 cases: collective results from the UK Heart Valve Registry. Circulation. 1997; 96: 3403–3408.
Head SJ, Mokhles MM, Osnabrugge RLJ, Pibarot P, Mack MJ, Takkenberg JJM, 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. European Heart Journal. 2012; 33: 1518–1529.
Uchino G, Murakami H, Mukohara N, Tanaka H, Nomura Y, Miyahara S, et al. Modes of the bioprosthetic valve failure of the porcine and pericardial valves in the mitral position. European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery: Official Journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery. 2022; 62: ezab506.
Iqbal J, Zhang YJ, Holmes DR, Morice MC, Mack MJ, Kappetein AP, et al. Optimal medical therapy improves clinical outcomes in patients undergoing revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting: insights from the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial at the 5-year follow-up. Circulation. 2015; 131: 1269–1277.
