Bioprosthesis in the Mitral Position: Bovine Pericardial versus Porcine Xenograft

Abstract

Background: While the use of bioprosthetic valves for mitral valve replacement (MVR) is increasing, very few studies have compared bovine pericardial and porcine valves in the mitral position to help guide bioprosthetic selection. Methods: In the present study, patients who underwent MVR using bovine pericardial valves were compared with those who underwent MVR with porcine bioprostheses between January 1996 and July 2018. Those with prior MVR, infective endocarditis, congenital mitral valve disease, or ischemic mitral regurgitation were excluded. The primary outcomes were structural valve deterioration (SVD) and mitral valve reoperation from any cause, and death was regarded as a competing risk. Competing risk analysis and propensity score-matching were used for comparisons. Results: Among the 388 patients enrolled, pericardial and porcine bioprostheses were implanted in 217 (55.9%) and 171 (44.1%), respectively. Propensity score-matching yielded 122 pairs of patients that were well-balanced for all baseline covariates. No significant differences were observed between the groups in unadjusted (p=0.09) and adjusted overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72–1.76; p=0.60). Competing risk analysis revealed no significant differences in the risks of mitral reoperation (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.50–2.27; p=0.86) and development of SVD (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.56–4.36; p=0.39) between the groups. Matched population analysis confirmed similar results regarding reoperation (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.40–3.22; p=0.98) and SVD (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.41– 4.73; p=0.60). Conclusion: No significant differences in survival or valve durability were observed between bovine pericardial and porcine bioprosthetic MVR. These findings require further validation through studies with larger sample sizes.

Keywords

• mitral valve replacement
• heart valve bioprosthesis