Do heart valve bioprostheses degenerate for metabolic or mechanical reasons?

Although heart valve bioprostheses provide a normal quality of life, their durability is still of great concern. Their durability failure is defined as "degeneration," which is considered to be a consequence of metabolic factors. In this study, we demonstrate that mechanical and design factors can also be responsible for bioprosthesis failure. Large numbers of porcine and pericardial bioprostheses were tested in a fatigue-testing system in which the test conditions were proved to be reproducible and accurate by a laser Doppler anemometer. The results have allowed us to define causes of failure, previously insufficiently stressed, in each type of valve tested. There is a clear difference in factors influencing tissue disruption between porcine and pericardial valves. We have compared these in vitro results with in vivo clinical findings. The main inferences are as follows: (1) Bioprostheses rupture and fail in the same fashion in both in vitro and in vivo studies. (2) Mechanical and design factors are involved in tissue failure. (3) The in vitro/in vivo durability ratio is not 1:1. This ratio depends on the test conditions. (4) Pericardial valves fail because of damage during closure, whereas porcine valves are damaged during both opening and closing (mostly opening) because of design features. (5) Once one cusp fails and prolapses, the other cusps will fail in an accelerated fashion. (6) In vitro durability of 100 X 10(6) cycles can be considered excellent and is an achievable goal. (7) Variability is the key impediment to predicting the durability of bioprostheses. Valves can fail within 2 to 3 million cycles or can last more than 100 million cycles. Similarly, bioprostheses may require explantation within a few months or can last 10 to 13 years in patients. (8) Fatigue testing is an excellent and valuable tool to elucidate the mechanical factors responsible for this variability.

[1]  L. Cohn,et al.  Five to eight-year follow-up of patients undergoing porcine heart-valve replacement. , 1981, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  G. Grunkemeier,et al.  The analysis and presentation of surgical results by actuarial methods. , 1974, The Journal of surgical research.

[3]  A. M. Borkon,et al.  Mitral valve replacement with the Hancock bioprosthesis: five- to ten-year follow-up. , 1981, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[4]  V. Ferrans,et al.  Bioprosthetic valvular failure. Clinical and pathological observations in an experimental animal model. , 1982, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[5]  N. Broom,et al.  Fatigue-induced damage in glutaraldehyde-preserved heart valve tissue. , 1978, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[6]  D M McQueen,et al.  In vitro hydrodynamic comparison of mitral valve prostheses at high flow rates. , 1978, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[7]  S. Gabbay,et al.  Haemodynamics and durability of mitral bioprostheses--an in vitro study. , 1984, European heart journal.

[8]  D. C. Miller,et al.  Long-term evaluation of the porcine xenograft bioprosthesis. , 1979, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[9]  M Jones,et al.  Structure and classification of cuspal tears and perforations in porcine bioprosthetic cardiac valves implanted in patients. , 1981, The American journal of cardiology.

[10]  W. Roberts,et al.  Calcific deposits developing in a bovine pericardial bioprosthetic valve 3 days after implantation. , 1981, Circulation.

[11]  E. Stinson,et al.  Valve Replacement with the Starr‐Edwards and Hancock Prostheses: Comparative Analysis of Late Morbidity and Mortality , 1977, Annals of surgery.

[12]  R. Frater,et al.  Long-term follow-up of the Ionescu-Shiley mitral pericardial xenograft. , 1984, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[13]  D M McQueen,et al.  In Vitro Hydrodynamic Comparison of Mitral Valve Bioprostheses , 1979, Circulation.

[14]  A. Geha,et al.  Biological versus mechanical valves. Analysis of 1,116 valves inserted in 1,012 adult patients with a 4,818 patient-year and a 5,327 valve-year follow-up. , 1987, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[15]  M. G. Aguado,et al.  Bioprosthetic valve endocarditis: indicators for surgical intervention. , 1983, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[16]  F J Schoen,et al.  Anatomic analysis of removed prosthetic heart valves: causes of failure of 33 mechanical valves and 58 bioprostheses, 1980 to 1983. , 1985, Human pathology.

[17]  J. Strom,et al.  Sudden death due to cuspal dehiscence of the Ionescu-Shiley valve in the mitral position. , 1982, Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery.

[18]  S. Ablaza,et al.  Spontaneous disruption of Ionescu-Shiley bovine pericardial xenograft in the mitral position. , 1983, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[19]  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.

[20]  P. Stein,et al.  Spontaneous degeneration of porcine bioprosthetic valves. , 1980, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[21]  A. Carpentier,et al.  Structural changes of glutaraldehyde- treated porcine bioprosthetic valves. , 1982, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[22]  W. M. Swanson,et al.  Durability of prosthetic heart valves. , 1978, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[23]  E. Yellin,et al.  In vitro hydrodynamic comparison of St. Jude, Björk-Shiley and Hall-Kaster valves. , 1980, Transactions - American Society for Artificial Internal Organs.

[24]  S. D. Volta,et al.  Heart Valve Replacement with the Hancock Bioprosthesis: Analysis of Long‐Term Results , 1977, Circulation.

[25]  D. C. Miller,et al.  Clinical durability of the Hancock porcine bioprosthetic valve. , 1980, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[26]  R. Frater,et al.  The Meadox unicusp pericardial bioprosthetic heart valve: new concept. , 1984, The Annals of thoracic surgery.