HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Michel R Aupart Paul H Neville Michel A Marchand Guy J Fradet Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jamieson, W. E. Articles by Fradet, G. J Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jamieson, W. E. Articles by Fradet, G. J Related Collections Valve disease

15-Year Comparison of Supra-Annular Porcine and PERIMOUNT Aortic Bioprostheses

Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada
¹ Cardiac Surgery Service, Hopital Trousseau, Francois-Rabelais University Tours, France

For reprint information contact: WR Eric Jamieson, MD Tel: 1 604 806 8383 Fax: 1 604 806 8384 Email: wrej{at}interchange.ubc.ca, 486 Burrard Building, St. Paul’s Hospital, 1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada.

The second-generation Carpentier-Edwards bioprostheses, the supra-annular porcine valve and the PERIMOUNT pericardial valve, have been evaluated longitudinally for several years. This study compared clinical performance over 15 years. Aortic valve replacement was performed with a supra-annular porcine valve in 1,823 patients (group 1) aged 19–89 years (mean, 68.9 ± 10.9 years) and with a PERIMOUNT pericardial bioprosthesis in 1,430 patients (group 2) aged 16–90 years (mean, 69.5 ± 10.4 years). The groups were similar except for concomitant coronary artery bypass in 43% of group 1 and 18% of group 2 ( p < 0.001). Overall survival at 15 years was 29.3% ± 1.5% for group 1 and 35.2% ± 3.1% for group 2 ( p = 0.0009). The actual freedom from valve-related mortality was 88.5% ± 0.9% for group 1 and 84.9% ± 1.7% for group 2. The actual freedom from structural valve deterioration at 15 years was similar overall, and for patients aged > 60 years, between the groups, but was dissimilar (group 2 > group 1) for age 60 years. The predictors of structural valve deterioration were valve type (group 1 > group 2), sex (male > female), age, and concomitant coronary artery bypass. Both bioprostheses provided satisfactory clinical performance at 15 years after aortic valve replacement.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. Prasongsukarn, W. E. Jamieson, E. Germann, F. Chan, and S. V Lichtenstein Aortic and Mitral Prosthetic Valve Replacement in Age Groups 61 65 & 66 70 Years Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann, April 1, 2007; 15(2): 127 - 133. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Lau, W.R. E. Jamieson, C. Hughes, E. Germann, and F. Chan What Prosthesis Should Be Used at Valve Re-Replacement After Structural Valve Deterioration of a Bioprosthesis? Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2006; 82(6): 2123 - 2132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]