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 Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): John B. Chambers Christopher I. Blauth Graham E. Venn Christopher P. Young James C. Roxburgh Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Chambers, J. B. Articles by Roxburgh, J. C. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Chambers, J. B. Articles by Roxburgh, J. C. Related Collections Valve disease

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008;136:1142-1148
© 2008 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery

Surgery for Acquired Cardiovascular Disease

Bovine pericardial versus porcine stented replacement aortic valves: Early results of a randomized comparison of the Perimount and the Mosaic valves

Cardiothoracic Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals, London, United Kingdom

Received for publication August 11, 2007; revisions received December 10, 2007; accepted for publication December 27, 2007.

^_* Address for reprints: John B. Chambers, MD, FACC, Cardiothoracic Centre, St Thomas' Hospital, London SE1 7EH, United Kingdom. (Email: jboydchambers{at}aol.com).

Objective: A stented bovine pericardial valve might be less obstructive than a stented porcine valve. This study compared early hemodynamic function in a prospective series of 99 patients randomized to receive either a Mosaic or Perimount replacement aortic valve.

Methods: Echocardiography was performed early after surgery and at 1 year after surgery. Patients also filled in psychologic questionnaires and underwent a 6-minute walk.

Results: The groups were matched demographically. The Perimount valve was significantly less obstructive in terms of mean pressure difference (11 ± 5 vs 17 ± 7 mm Hg; P < .0001), with a trend in favor of a larger effective orifice area (1.47 ± 0.45 vs 1.28 ± 0.46 cm²; P = .05) postoperatively. There were no differences in left ventricular mass regression, aortic regurgitation, 6-minute walk, psychologic questionnaires, or mortality and clinical events.

Conclusion: The stented bovine pericardial valve was less obstructive than the stented porcine valve. Both valves were associated with similar and significant improvements in quality of life, exercise ability, and regression of left ventricular mass.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. J. Ruzicka, I. Hettich, A. Hutter, S. Bleiziffer, C. C. Badiu, R. Bauernschmitt, R. Lange, and W. B. Eichinger The Complete Supraannular Concept: In Vivo Hemodynamics of Bovine and Porcine Aortic Bioprostheses Circulation, September 15, 2009; 120(11_suppl_1): S139 - S145. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]