Hemodynamic performance of the Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis up to ten years.

BACKGROUND The Mosaic bioprosthesis (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) is a third-generation stented porcine bioprosthesis combining physiologic fixation and amino oleic acid antimineralization treatment to improve hemodynamic performance and durability. The findings of this single-center experience with this valve were evaluated to determine the clinical and hemodynamic performance. METHODS Between February 1994 and October 1999, we enrolled 255 patients with aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a mean age of 67 years (range, 23 to 82 years) and 47 patients with mitral valve replacement (MVR) with a mean age of 67 years (range, 41 to 84 years) in this post-United States Food and Drug Administration approval prospective and nonrandomized clinical trial. Patients were followed-up, including serial echocardiographic assessment, within 30 days, at 6 months, and annually thereafter. The cumulative follow-up was 1540 patient-years for AVR (mean, 6.1 years; maximum, 10 years) and 250 patient-years for MVR (mean, 5.4 years, maximum; 10 years). RESULTS Early mortality after AVR (<30 days) was 0.8%; late mortality per patient-year was 3.5%, including a valve-related/unexplained mortality of 1.1%. Early mortality after MVR (<30 days) was 0.0%; late mortality per patient-year was 2.8%, including a valve-related/unexplained mortality of 1.2%. Median postoperative gradient and effective orifice area for all valves after AVR were (early, n = 252; 5 years, n = 161; 9 years, n = 43) 13.7, 12.3, and 11.7 mm Hg and 1.9, 1.8, and 1.8 cm2 at early, 5 years, and 9 years, respectively. With MVR respective data were (early, n = 46; 5 years, n = 25; 7 years, n = 13) 4.6, 4.1, and 3.9 mm Hg and 1.8, 2.2, and 2.3 cm2. At 10 years, freedom from adverse events in the AVR group and MVR group was, respectively, thromboembolism, 86.6% +/- 6.6% and 86.3% +/- 9.8%; permanent neurologic event, 91.2% +/- 6.8% and 90.9% +/- 8.7%; valve thrombosis, 98.2% +/- 0.8% and 100%; structural valve deterioration, 87.1% +/- 6.7% and 100%. CONCLUSIONS Our midterm results demonstrate clinical safety and good performance of the Mosaic bioprosthesis. Continued follow-up will determine if this new design will provide increased durability.

[1]  J. Métras,et al.  The mosaic valve clinical performance at seven years: results from a multicenter prospective clinical trial. , 2004, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[2]  M. Pike,et al.  Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. analysis and examples. , 1977, British Journal of Cancer.

[3]  J E Okies,et al.  Long-term durability and patient functional status of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis in the aortic position. , 1998, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[4]  P. Thompson,et al.  High Density Lipoprotein Metabolism in Endurance Athletes and Sedentary Men , 1991, Circulation.

[5]  S. Armstrong,et al.  Clinical and hemodynamic assessment of the Hancock II bioprosthesis. , 1992, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[6]  L Robert,et al.  Biological factors affecting long-term results of valvular heterografts. , 1969, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[7]  S. Armstrong,et al.  Late results of heart valve replacement with the Hancock II bioprosthesis. , 2001, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[8]  E. Jones,et al.  Ten-year experience with the porcine bioprosthetic valve: interrelationship of valve survival and patient survival in 1,050 valve replacements. , 1990, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[9]  G. Melina,et al.  A quantitative study of calcium deposition in the aortic wall following Medtronic Freestyle compared with homograft aortic root replacement. A prospective randomized trial. , 2000, Journal of Heart Valve Disease.

[10]  R. Guyton,et al.  In vivo hemodynamic, histologic, and antimineralization characteristics of the Mosaic bioprosthesis. , 2001, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[11]  G F Tyers,et al.  Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine bioprosthesis: primary tissue failure (structural valve deterioration) by age groups. , 1988, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[12]  M. Carrier,et al.  15-year experience with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis. , 1998, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[13]  C. Mullany,et al.  Hemodynamic performance of small aortic valve bioprostheses: is there a difference? , 1997, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[14]  W. Jamieson,et al.  Carpentier-Edwards supraannular porcine bioprosthesis: second-generation prosthesis in aortic valve replacement. , 2001, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[15]  W. Jamieson,et al.  Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine bioprosthesis: clinical performance to seventeen years. , 1995, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[16]  M Jones,et al.  Anticalcification Treatments of Bioprosthetic Heart Valves: In Vivo Studies in Sheep , 1989, Journal of cardiac surgery.

[17]  N G Smedira,et al.  Long-term results of the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial aortic valve: a 12-year follow-up. , 1998, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[18]  K. Caidahl,et al.  10-year experience with the Biocor porcine bioprosthesis in the aortic position. , 1994, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[19]  J. M. Bernal,et al.  Durability of the Carpentier-Edwards porcine bioprosthesis: role of age and valve position. , 1995, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[20]  B. Barratt-Boyes,et al.  The medtronic intact porcine valve: ten-year clinical review. , 1998, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[21]  W. Jamieson,et al.  Hemodynamic comparison of second- and third-generation stented bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement. , 2001, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[22]  M. Legget,et al.  Early experience with the mosaic bioprosthesis: a new generation porcine valve. , 2000, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[23]  I. Vesely,et al.  Analysis of the Medtronic Intact bioprosthetic valve. Effects of "zero-pressure" fixation. , 1991, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[24]  M. Carrier,et al.  The Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: clinical experience with 600 patients. , 1995, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[25]  L. Cohn,et al.  Guidelines for reporting morbidity and mortality after cardiac valvular operations. , 1988, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[26]  G F Tyers,et al.  The Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine bioprosthesis. A first-generation tissue valve with excellent long-term clinical performance. , 1990, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[27]  M. Eriksson,et al.  Eleven years' experience with the Biocor stentless aortic bioprosthesis: clinical and hemodynamic follow-up with long-term relative survival rate. , 2002, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[28]  Craig D. Miller,et al.  Randomized, Prospective Assessment of Bioprosthetic Valve Durabilit Hancock Versus Carpentier‐Edwards Valves , 1993, Circulation.

[29]  R. Günzinger,et al.  The Mosaic bioprosthesis in the aortic position: seven years' results. , 2003, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[30]  P. Stein,et al.  The porcine bioprosthetic heart valve: experience at 15 years. , 1989, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[31]  F. Schoen,et al.  Calcification of porcine valves: a successful new method of antimineralization. , 1992, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[32]  F. Mohr,et al.  Effectiveness of different anticalcification treatments for stentless aortic bioprostheses. , 1999, The Thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon.

[33]  W. Daggett,et al.  Late results with Carpentier-Edwards porcine bioprosthesis. , 1990, Circulation.