HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Conrad L. Pelletier Michel Pellerin Michel R. Aupart Willem J. Daenen Tirone E. David William N. Anderson, Jr Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Eric Jamieson, W. R. Articles by Anderson, W. N. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Eric Jamieson, W. R. Articles by Anderson, W. N., Jr

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999;118:297-305
© 1999 Mosby, Inc.

SURGERY FOR ACQUIRED CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE

STRUCTURAL VALVE DETERIORATION IN MITRAL REPLACEMENT SURGERY: COMPARISON OF CARPENTIER-EDWARDS SUPRA-ANNULAR PORCINE AND PERIMOUNT PERICARDIAL BIOPROSTHESES

From Vancouver and Toronto, Canada^a; Tours Cedex, France^b; Tyne and Walsgrave Coventry, United Kingdom^c; Uppsala, Sweden^d; Leuven, Belgium^e; and Irvine, Calif.^f

Address for reprints: W. R. Eric Jamieson, MD, Suite 3100, 910 West 10th Ave, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V5Z 4E3.

Background: Bioprostheses preserved with glutaraldehyde, both porcine and pericardial, have been available as second-generation prostheses for valve replacement surgery. The performance with regard to structural valve deterioration with the Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular (CE-SAV) porcine bioprosthesis and the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount (CE-P) pericardial bioprosthesis (Baxter Healthcare Corp, Edwards Division, Santa Ana, Calif) was evaluated to determine whether there was a difference in mitral valve replacement.
Methods: The CE-SAV bioprosthesis was implanted in 1266 overall mitral valve replacements (isolated mitral, 1066; mitral in multiple, 200) and the CE-P bioprosthesis in 429 overall mitral valve replacements (isolated mitral, 328; mitral in multiple, 101). The mean age of the CE-SAV population was 64.2 ± 12.2 years and that of the CE-P population, 60.7 ± 11.7 years (P = .0001). For the study, structural valve deterioration was diagnosed at reoperation for explantation.
Results: The freedom from structural valve deterioration was evaluated to 10 years, and the freedom rates reported are at 10 years. For the overall mitral valve replacement groups, the actuarial freedom from deterioration was significant (P = .0001): CE-P > CE-SAV for 40 years or younger, 80% versus 60%; 41 to 50 years, 91% versus 61%; 51 to 60 years, 84% versus 69%; 61 to 70 years, 95% versus 75%. The older than 70-year group was 100% versus 92% (no significant difference). The actual freedom from structural valve deterioration also demonstrated the same pattern at 10 years: 40 years or younger, CE-P 82% versus CE-SAV 68%; 41 to 50 years, 92% versus 70%; 51 to 60 years, 90% versus 80%; 61 to 70 years, 97% versus 88%; and older than 70 years, 100% versus 97%. The independent risk factors of structural valve deterioration for the overall mitral valve replacement group were age and age groups and prosthesis type (CE-SAV > CE-P). The prosthesis type either in isolated replacement or in multiple replacement was not predictive of structural valve deterioration. The pathology of structural valve deterioration was different: 70% of CE-P failures were due to calcification and 57% of CE-SAV failures were due to combined calcification and leaflet tear.
Conclusion: The actuarial and actual freedom from structural valve deterioration, diagnosed at reoperation, is greater at 10 years for CE-P than for CE-SAV bioprostheses. The mode of failure is different, and the cause remains obscure. Long-term evaluation is recommended, because the different modes of failure may alter the clinical performance by 15 and 20 years.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. R. E. Jamieson, V. M. Gudas, L. H. Burr, M. T. Janusz, G. J. Fradet, H. Ling, E. Germann, and S. V. Lichtenstein Mitral valve disease: if the mitral valve is not reparable/failed repair, is bioprosthesis suitable for replacement? Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., January 1, 2009; 35(1): 104 - 110. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Kabbani, H. Jamil, F. Nabhani, A. Hamoud, K. Katan, N. Sabbagh, A. Koudsi, L. Kabbani, and G. Hamed Analysis of 92 mitral pulmonary autograft replacement (Ross II) operations. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., October 1, 2007; 134(4): 902 - 908.e7. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. H.L. Tang, M. Maganti, T. E. David, C. M. Feindel, H. E. Scully, and M. A. Borger Effect of Prior Valve Type on Mortality in Reoperative Valve Surgery Ann. Thorac. Surg., March 1, 2007; 83(3): 938 - 945. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Bottio, M. Valente, G. Rizzoli, V. Tarzia, G. Bisleri, E. Pettenazzo, G. Gerosa, and G. Thiene Commissural dehiscence: a rare and peculiar cause of porcine valve structural deterioration. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., November 1, 2006; 132(5): 1017 - 1022. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W.R. E. Jamieson, L. H. Burr, R. T. Miyagishima, E. Germann, J. S. MacNab, E. Stanford, F. Chan, M. T. Janusz, and H. Ling Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular aortic porcine bioprosthesis: Clinical performance over 20 years J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., October 1, 2005; 130(4): 994 - 1000. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Bottio, V. Tarzia, and C. Muneretto Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valve and intraoperative structural failure J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., November 1, 2004; 128(5): 795 - 795. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Ali, B. Iung, E. Lansac, P. Bruneval, and C. Acar Homograft replacement of the mitral valve: Eight-year results J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., October 1, 2004; 128(4): 529 - 534. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Rizzoli, T. Bottio, G. Thiene, G. Toscano, and D. Casarotto Long-term durability of the Hancock II porcine bioprosthesis J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., July 1, 2003; 126(1): 66 - 74. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Le Tourneau, A. Vincentelli, G. Fayad, C. Savoye, O. H. Fabre, A. Prat, and H. Warembourg Ten-year echocardiographic and clinical follow-up of aortic Carpentier-Edwards pericardial and supraannular prosthesis: a case-match study Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2002; 74(6): 2010 - 2015. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. L. Polo, J. J. Legarra, M. Vilar, A. Cabrera, D. Duran, and G. Pradas Early calcification of a Carpentier-Edwards Perimount mitral valve in an elderly woman J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., November 1, 2002; 124(5): 1043 - 1044. [Full Text] [PDF]

				W.R. E. Jamieson, M. T. Janusz, L. H. Burr, H. Ling, R. T. Miyagishima, and E. Germann Carpentier-Edwards supraannular porcine bioprosthesis: second-generation prosthesis in aortic valve replacement Ann. Thorac. Surg., May 1, 2001; 71 (2007): S224 - S227. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. A. Marchand, M. R. Aupart, R. Norton, I. R.A. Goldsmith, L. C. Pelletier, M. Pellerin, T. Dubiel, W. J. Daenen, P. Herijgers, F. P. Casselman, et al. Fifteen-year experience with the mitral Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT pericardial bioprosthesis Ann. Thorac. Surg., May 1, 2001; 71 (2007): S236 - S239. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]