Long-Term Outcomes of Bovine versus Porcine Mitral Valve Replacement: A Multicenter Analysis

Introduction. Recent national guidelines recommending mitral valve replacement (MVR) for severe secondary mitral regurgitation have resulted in an increased utilization of mitral bioprosthesis. There is a paucity of data on how longitudinal clinical outcomes vary by prosthesis type. We examined long...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: M. Broadwin, N. Ramkumar, D. J. Malenka, R. D. Quinn, C. S. Ross, F. Hirashima, J. D. Klemperer, R. S. Kramer, G. L. Sardella, B. Westbrook, A. W. Discipio, A. Iribarne, M. P. Robich
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2023-01-01
Series:Cardiology Research and Practice
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/2111843
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850217029413371904
author M. Broadwin
N. Ramkumar
D. J. Malenka
R. D. Quinn
C. S. Ross
F. Hirashima
J. D. Klemperer
R. S. Kramer
G. L. Sardella
B. Westbrook
A. W. Discipio
A. Iribarne
M. P. Robich
author_facet M. Broadwin
N. Ramkumar
D. J. Malenka
R. D. Quinn
C. S. Ross
F. Hirashima
J. D. Klemperer
R. S. Kramer
G. L. Sardella
B. Westbrook
A. W. Discipio
A. Iribarne
M. P. Robich
author_sort M. Broadwin
collection DOAJ
description Introduction. Recent national guidelines recommending mitral valve replacement (MVR) for severe secondary mitral regurgitation have resulted in an increased utilization of mitral bioprosthesis. There is a paucity of data on how longitudinal clinical outcomes vary by prosthesis type. We examined long-term survival and risk of reoperation between patients having bovine vs. porcine MVR. Study Design. A retrospective analysis of MVR or MVR + coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) from 2001 to 2017 among seven hospitals reporting to a prospectively maintained clinical registry was conducted. The analytic cohort included 1,284 patients undergoing MVR (801 bovine and 483 porcine). Baseline comorbidities were balanced using 1 : 1 propensity score matching with 432 patients in each group. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points included in-hospital morbidity, 30-day mortality, length of stay, and risk of reoperation. Results. In the overall cohort, patients receiving porcine valves were more likely to have diabetes (19% bovine vs. 29% porcine; p<0.001), COPD (20% bovine vs. 27% porcine; p=0.008), dialysis or creatinine >2 mg/dL (4% bovine vs. 7% porcine; p=0.03), and coronary artery disease (65% bovine vs. 77% porcine; p<0.001). There was no difference in stroke, acute kidney injury, mediastinitis, pneumonia, length of stay, in-hospital morbidity, or 30-day mortality. In the overall cohort, there was a difference in long-term survival (porcine HR 1.17 (95% CI: 1.00–1.37; p=050)). However, there was no difference in reoperation (porcine HR 0.56 (95% CI: 0.23–1.32; p=0.185)). In the propensity-matched cohort, patients were matched on all baseline characteristics. There was no difference in postoperative complications or in-hospital morbidity and 30-day mortality. After 1 : 1 propensity score matching, there was no difference in long-term survival (porcine HR 0.97 (95% CI: 0.81–1.17; p=0.756)) or risk of reoperation (porcine HR 0.54 (95% CI: 0.20–1.47; p=0.225)). Conclusions. In this multicenter analysis of patients undergoing bioprosthetic MVR, there was no difference in perioperative complications and risk of reoperation of long-term survival after matching.
format Article
id doaj-art-2f939e79f5ce4562830e6719c0134663
institution OA Journals
issn 2090-0597
language English
publishDate 2023-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Cardiology Research and Practice
spelling doaj-art-2f939e79f5ce4562830e6719c01346632025-08-20T02:08:09ZengWileyCardiology Research and Practice2090-05972023-01-01202310.1155/2023/2111843Long-Term Outcomes of Bovine versus Porcine Mitral Valve Replacement: A Multicenter AnalysisM. Broadwin0N. Ramkumar1D. J. Malenka2R. D. Quinn3C. S. Ross4F. Hirashima5J. D. Klemperer6R. S. Kramer7G. L. Sardella8B. Westbrook9A. W. Discipio10A. Iribarne11M. P. Robich12Department of SurgeryGeisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth CollegeDepartment of MedicineDepartment of SurgeryDepartment of MedicineDepartment of SurgeryNorthern Light CardiologyDepartment of SurgeryDepartment of SurgeryDepartment of SurgeryDepartment of SurgeryDepartment of SurgeryJohns Hopkins HospitalIntroduction. Recent national guidelines recommending mitral valve replacement (MVR) for severe secondary mitral regurgitation have resulted in an increased utilization of mitral bioprosthesis. There is a paucity of data on how longitudinal clinical outcomes vary by prosthesis type. We examined long-term survival and risk of reoperation between patients having bovine vs. porcine MVR. Study Design. A retrospective analysis of MVR or MVR + coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) from 2001 to 2017 among seven hospitals reporting to a prospectively maintained clinical registry was conducted. The analytic cohort included 1,284 patients undergoing MVR (801 bovine and 483 porcine). Baseline comorbidities were balanced using 1 : 1 propensity score matching with 432 patients in each group. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points included in-hospital morbidity, 30-day mortality, length of stay, and risk of reoperation. Results. In the overall cohort, patients receiving porcine valves were more likely to have diabetes (19% bovine vs. 29% porcine; p<0.001), COPD (20% bovine vs. 27% porcine; p=0.008), dialysis or creatinine >2 mg/dL (4% bovine vs. 7% porcine; p=0.03), and coronary artery disease (65% bovine vs. 77% porcine; p<0.001). There was no difference in stroke, acute kidney injury, mediastinitis, pneumonia, length of stay, in-hospital morbidity, or 30-day mortality. In the overall cohort, there was a difference in long-term survival (porcine HR 1.17 (95% CI: 1.00–1.37; p=050)). However, there was no difference in reoperation (porcine HR 0.56 (95% CI: 0.23–1.32; p=0.185)). In the propensity-matched cohort, patients were matched on all baseline characteristics. There was no difference in postoperative complications or in-hospital morbidity and 30-day mortality. After 1 : 1 propensity score matching, there was no difference in long-term survival (porcine HR 0.97 (95% CI: 0.81–1.17; p=0.756)) or risk of reoperation (porcine HR 0.54 (95% CI: 0.20–1.47; p=0.225)). Conclusions. In this multicenter analysis of patients undergoing bioprosthetic MVR, there was no difference in perioperative complications and risk of reoperation of long-term survival after matching.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/2111843
spellingShingle M. Broadwin
N. Ramkumar
D. J. Malenka
R. D. Quinn
C. S. Ross
F. Hirashima
J. D. Klemperer
R. S. Kramer
G. L. Sardella
B. Westbrook
A. W. Discipio
A. Iribarne
M. P. Robich
Long-Term Outcomes of Bovine versus Porcine Mitral Valve Replacement: A Multicenter Analysis
Cardiology Research and Practice
title Long-Term Outcomes of Bovine versus Porcine Mitral Valve Replacement: A Multicenter Analysis
title_full Long-Term Outcomes of Bovine versus Porcine Mitral Valve Replacement: A Multicenter Analysis
title_fullStr Long-Term Outcomes of Bovine versus Porcine Mitral Valve Replacement: A Multicenter Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Long-Term Outcomes of Bovine versus Porcine Mitral Valve Replacement: A Multicenter Analysis
title_short Long-Term Outcomes of Bovine versus Porcine Mitral Valve Replacement: A Multicenter Analysis
title_sort long term outcomes of bovine versus porcine mitral valve replacement a multicenter analysis
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/2111843
work_keys_str_mv AT mbroadwin longtermoutcomesofbovineversusporcinemitralvalvereplacementamulticenteranalysis
AT nramkumar longtermoutcomesofbovineversusporcinemitralvalvereplacementamulticenteranalysis
AT djmalenka longtermoutcomesofbovineversusporcinemitralvalvereplacementamulticenteranalysis
AT rdquinn longtermoutcomesofbovineversusporcinemitralvalvereplacementamulticenteranalysis
AT csross longtermoutcomesofbovineversusporcinemitralvalvereplacementamulticenteranalysis
AT fhirashima longtermoutcomesofbovineversusporcinemitralvalvereplacementamulticenteranalysis
AT jdklemperer longtermoutcomesofbovineversusporcinemitralvalvereplacementamulticenteranalysis
AT rskramer longtermoutcomesofbovineversusporcinemitralvalvereplacementamulticenteranalysis
AT glsardella longtermoutcomesofbovineversusporcinemitralvalvereplacementamulticenteranalysis
AT bwestbrook longtermoutcomesofbovineversusporcinemitralvalvereplacementamulticenteranalysis
AT awdiscipio longtermoutcomesofbovineversusporcinemitralvalvereplacementamulticenteranalysis
AT airibarne longtermoutcomesofbovineversusporcinemitralvalvereplacementamulticenteranalysis
AT mprobich longtermoutcomesofbovineversusporcinemitralvalvereplacementamulticenteranalysis