title: Porcine versus pericardial bioprostheses: eleven-year follow up of a prospective randomized trial.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  There is renewed interest in the pericardial heart valve as an alternative to the porcine bioprosthesis. The long-term results of a randomized trial comparing a second-generation pericardial valve against a well-tested porcine bioprosthesis are presented. Seven-year follow up has been reported previously. Production of the Bioflo pericardial prosthesis used in this trial was discontinued due to fears related to bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
  
  
  METHODS
  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. Eighty-five patients received 93 Bioflo valves (46 AVR, 31 MVR, eight AVR+MVR), and the remaining 85 received 99 CE valves (48 AVR, 23 MVR, 14 AVR+MVR). Mean patient age was 61.0 years (range: 38-77 years) for the Bioflo group and 62.1 years (range: 41-77 years) for the CE group. Current follow up is 100% complete and totals 1,391 patient-years; mean +/- SD follow up was 8.2 +/- 3.4 years (maximum 12.2 years).
  
  
  RESULTS
  The operative mortality rate was 4.12%. There were 70 patients still at risk at 11 years (31 Bioflo, 39 CE); of these, 91.4% were in NYHA classes I/II. No significant difference in survival or valve-related complications was seen between the groups. Mean (+/- SEM) survival at 11 years was 41.4 +/- 6.8% in the Bioflo group and 55.3 +/- 6.8% in the CE group (p = 0.15). There were 16 valve-related deaths (nine in the Bioflo group, seven in the CE group). At 11 years, 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). Valve position had no impact on survival. At 11 years, 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).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Over the 11-year period of follow up, clinical performance of the Bioflo pericardial valve was comparable with that of the Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular porcine bioprosthesis. No difference was apparent between the two valve types when implanted in either the aortic or the mitral position.
authors.affiliation: University of Glasgow, Department of Cardiac Surgery, Royal Infirmary, UK.
authors.forename: M A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Chaudhry
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Raco
authors.forename: E W
authors.initials: EW
authors.lastname: Muriithi
authors.forename: G M
authors.initials: GM
authors.lastname: Bernacca
authors.forename: M M
authors.initials: MM
authors.lastname: Tolland
authors.forename: D J
authors.initials: DJ
authors.lastname: Wheatley
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001021:Aortic Valve; D001705:Bioprosthesis; D002417:Cattle; D015150:Echocardiography, Doppler; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006350:Heart Valve Prosthesis / Q000009:adverse effects; D019918:Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D008943:Mitral Valve; D009017:Morbidity; D010496:Pericardium; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000453:epidemiology; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012086:Reoperation / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D015996:Survival Rate; D013552:Swine; D013997:Time Factors