|
Porcine versus Pericardial Bioprostheses: Eleven-Year Follow Up
of a Prospective Randomized Trial
Mubarak A. Chaudhry FRCS, Lucia Raco MD, Elijah W. Muriithi FRCS, Gillian M. Bernacca PhD, Margaret M. Tolland, David J. Wheatley MD Between February 1987 and March 1990, 170 patients undergoing aortic (AVR) or mitral (MVR) valve replacement were assigned randomly to receive either the Bioflo pericardial bioprosthesis or the Carpentier-Edwards (CE) supra-annular porcine bioprosthesis implanted in the aortic or mitral position. Mean follow up was 8.2 years (maximum 12.2 years). There were 70 patients still at risk at 11 years; of these, 91.4% were in NYHA classes I and II. Eleven-year freedom from valve-related mortality was 89.5 ± 3.9% for the Bioflo group and 91.0 ± 3.5% for the CE group (p = 0.4). Freedom from structural valve deterioration was 83.9 ± 5.4% and 87.5 ± 4.2% in the Bioflo and CE groups, respectively (p = 0.9). No difference in valve-related morbidity or mortality was seen between groups. The clinical performance of the Bioflo pericardial valve was comparable with that of the CE supra-annular porcine bioprosthesis, and no difference was apparent between the two valve types when fitted in either the aortic or mitral position. |
429 |