Bovine pericardium versus porcine aortic valve: comparison of tissue biological properties as prosthetic valves.

The choice of a bioprosthetic valve substitute remains controversial with the major concern being primary tissue failure after implantation. We compared biological properties of the two most frequently used bioprosthetic valve materials, bovine pericardium and porcine aortic valve, before and 90 days after subcutaneous implantation in rats. Before implantation, tissue collagen and water content were measured in nine pieces of bovine pericardium and porcine valves, each fixed in 0.625% glutaraldehyde; calcium, tissue collagen, and water content were measured in another nine pieces of the same tissues after 90 days' implantation. Bovine pericardium had higher collagen content than that of porcine valve (hydroxyproline, 7.98 +/- 0.05* vs. 4.56 +/- 0.02 micrograms/mg, dry weight) but lesser water content (72.16 +/- 3.22%* vs. 87.36 +/- 1.62%) before implantation (*p < 0.001, mean +/- SD, t test); after implantation, bovine pericardium still maintained higher collagen content (hydroxyproline, 4.89 +/- 0.04* vs. 2.61 +/- 0.06 micrograms/mg, dry weight) but contained the same amount of water (60.24 +/- 5.08% vs. 61.43 +/- 9.00%) and calcium (214.43 +/- 34.34 vs. 199.33 +/- 53.44 micrograms/mg, dry weight) (*p < 0.001, mean +/- SD, t test). We conclude that bovine pericardium has superior intrinsic biological properties for prosthetic valve manufacture. With proper integration of properties and design it will in some applications be superior to the porcine aortic valve.

[1]  W. Mcmaster,et al.  Tendon grafting with glutaraldehyde fixed material. , 1976, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[2]  E. Yellin,et al.  Hemodynamic performance of the Ionescu-Shiley valve prosthesis. , 1980, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[3]  M. Thubrikar,et al.  Role of mechanical stress in calcification of aortic bioprosthetic valves. , 1983, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[4]  E. Arbustini,et al.  Calcific degeneration as the main cause of porcine bioprosthetic valve failure. , 1984, The American journal of cardiology.

[5]  J. Strom,et al.  Fatigue-induced failure of the Ionescu-Shiley pericardial xenograft in the mitral position. In vivo and in vitro correlation and a proposed classification. , 1984, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[6]  Tissue Valves: Current Status , 1985 .

[7]  C. Duran,et al.  Comparative study of primary tissue valve failure between Ionescu-Shiley pericardial and Hancock porcine valves in the aortic position. , 1986, The American journal of cardiology.

[8]  R. Levy,et al.  The role of glutaraldehyde-induced cross-links in calcification of bovine pericardium used in cardiac valve bioprostheses. , 1987, The American journal of pathology.

[9]  M. Carrier,et al.  Porcine versus pericardial bioprostheses: a comparison of late results in 1,593 patients. , 1989, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[10]  G. Weinstein,et al.  Crossovers in coronary artery bypass grafting trials. , 1990, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[11]  P. Stassano,et al.  Porcine versus pericardial bioprostheses. , 1990, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[12]  Y. Tomizawa,et al.  A new bioprosthetic cardiac valve with reduced calcification. , 1990, ASAIO transactions.

[13]  A. Mazzucco,et al.  Failure of Hancock pericardial xenografts: is prophylactic bioprosthetic replacement justified? , 1991, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[14]  V. Walley,et al.  Patterns of failure in Hancock pericardial bioprostheses. , 1991, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[15]  Two-dimensional mechanical and ultrastructural correlates of bovine pericardium for prosthetic valves. , 1991, ASAIO transactions.

[16]  A. Pipe,et al.  Long-term clinical results with the Ionescu-Shiley pericardial xenograft. , 1991, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.