Ten-year experience with the porcine bioprosthetic valve: interrelationship of valve survival and patient survival in 1,050 valve replacements.

The porcine bioprosthetic valve was used in 440 patients having isolated mitral valve replacement (MVR), 522 patients having isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR), and 88 patients having MVR + AVR between 1974 and 1981. Patients with associated surgical procedures were excluded. Mean follow-up was 8.3 years. At 10 years, there was no difference in patient survival between those having AVR and those having MVR. Reoperations were performed on 192 patients. Endocarditis was the reason for reoperation in 3.7% of patients who had MVR and 10.6% of those who had AVR. Structural valve degeneration was the reason for reoperation in 89.7% of MVR patients and 78.8% of AVR patients (p = 0.04). Hospital mortality among patients having valve reoperations was 4.7%. At 10 years, the freedom from valve reoperation for all causes and from structural valve degeneration was significantly better for the AVR group than the MVR group (74% +/- 3% versus 61% +/- 4%, p = 0.004; and 79% +/- 3% versus 63% +/- 4%, p = 0.0006, respectively). For patients in their 60s, the 10-year freedom from reoperation was 92% +/- 2% for AVR and 80% +/- 6% for MVR (p = not significant). At 10 years, freedom from cardiac-related death and valve reoperation was best for both MVR and AVR patients in their 60s. Patients 70 years old or older rarely had reoperation but died before valve failure occurred. The 10-year freedom from all major valve-related events (cardiac-related death, reoperation, thromboembolism, endocarditis, and anticoagulant-related bleeding) was practically the same for both MVR and AVR patients (48% +/- 3% versus 49% +/- 3%, respectively). The porcine bioprosthetic valve is the valve of choice only for patients 60 years old or older. Patients in their 70s have an extremely low rate of reoperation but a high rate of cardiac-related death and do not outlive the prostheses.

[1]  N. Mantel.  Evaluation of survival data and two new rank order statistics arising in its consideration. , 1966, Cancer chemotherapy reports.

[2]  D. Cox.  Regression Models and Life-Tables , 1972 .

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

[4]  G Thiene,et al.  Results of reoperation for primary tissue failure of porcine bioprostheses. , 1985, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[5]  J. Moran,et al.  An eight-year experience with porcine bioprosthetic cardiac valves. , 1986, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[6]  G. Stellin,et al.  Performance of the Hancock porcine bioprosthesis following aortic valve replacement: considerations based on a 15-year experience. , 1988, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[7]  A. Mazzucco,et al.  The Standard Hancock Porcine Bioprosthesis: Overall Experience at the University of Padova , 1988, Journal of cardiac surgery.

[8]  L. Cohn,et al.  Long-term failure rate and morphologic correlations in porcine bioprosthetic heart valves. , 1983, The American journal of cardiology.

[9]  D. C. Miller,et al.  A tri-institutional comparison of tissue and mechanical values using a patient-oriented definition of "treatment failure". , 1987, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[10]  F. Nistal,et al.  Incidence of primary tissue valve failure in porcine bioprosthetic heart valves. , 1988, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[11]  E. Stinson,et al.  Mitral Valve Replacement: Long‐Term Evaluation of Prosthesis‐Related Mortality and Morbidity , 1977, Circulation.

[12]  E. Peterson,et al.  The porcine bioprosthetic valve. Twelve years later. , 1985, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

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

[14]  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.

[15]  F. Loop,et al.  Primary isolated aortic valve replacement. Early and late results. , 1989, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[16]  A. Mazzucco,et al.  Isolated mitral valve replacement with the Hancock bioprosthesis: a 13-year appraisal. , 1984, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

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

[18]  G. Poletti,et al.  Porcine cardiac bioprostheses: evaluation of long-term results in 990 patients. , 1985, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[19]  A. Galloway,et al.  Experiences with 1643 Porcine Prosthetic Valves in 1492 Patients , 1986, Annals of surgery.

[20]  L. Cohn,et al.  Early and late risk of aortic valve replacement. A 12 year concomitant comparison of the porcine bioprosthetic and tilting disc prosthetic aortic valves. , 1984, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[21]  E. Kaplan,et al.  Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations , 1958 .

[22]  N. Breslow.  A generalized Kruskal-Wallis test for comparing K samples subject to unequal patterns of censorship , 1970 .

[23]  A. Carpentier,et al.  A 10-year comparison of mitral valve replacement with Carpentier-Edwards and Hancock porcine bioprostheses. , 1989, The Annals of thoracic surgery.