Aspire Porcine
Bioprosthesis: Ten Years’ Experience
Leonidas Hadjinikolaou, Maria C. Boehm, Catherine Ganner, Simon W.
Kendall, Michael D. Rosin, Ira R. Goldsmith, Tom J. Spyt
Cardiothoracic Surgical Units of Walsgrave
Hospital, Coventry, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester, James Cook University
Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK |
Background and aim of the study: Clinical results
of this multicenter study of the Aspire porcine valve were reported previously
at eight years; the present report provides an update of valve performance
to 10 years postoperatively.
Methods: A total of 749 patients (60% males; mean age
73 ±
7 years) underwent implantation with the Aspire (Tissuemed) porcine bioprosthesis
between 1991 and 2002, at three institutions. Follow up was complete for
98% of the cohort. The mean follow up period was 51.6 ± 39.6 months
(range: 0-181 months); total follow up was 3,159 patient-years (pt-yr).
Results: There were 617 aortic valve replacements (AVR),
96 mitral valve replacements (MVR) and 32 double valve replacements.
There were 62 deaths (8.3%), one of which was valve-related. The
late mortality rate was 9.3% per pt-yr (1.2%/pt-yr valve-related).
Actuarial freedom from complications at 10 years was: thromboembolism
76 ± 4% |
(2.6%/pt-yr); hemorrhage 73 ± 4% (2.8%/pt-yr);
structural valve deterioration (SVD) 96 ± 2% (0.2%/pt-yr); non-structural
deterioration 99 ± 1% (0.1%/pt-y); prosthetic valve endocarditis
97 ± 1% (0.3%/pt-yr); and reoperation 97 ± 1% (0.4%/pt-yr).
In patients aged >70 years, the 10-year actuarial freedom from SVD
was 98 ± 2% for AVR and 93 ± 7% for MVR. Preoperative atrial
fibrillation (AF) was a significant predictor of late mortality (p <0.001),
thromboembolism (p = 0.05) and hemorrhage (p = 0.01).
Conclusion: The Aspire porcine bioprostheses is a reliable
choice for a tissue valve, for both the aortic and mitral positions,
especially in patients aged >70 years. In elderly patients the
presence of AF is a significant predictor of early and late mortality
and morbidity.
The Journal of Heart Valve Disease 2005;14:47-53 |