A comparison of early redo surgery rates in Mosaic porcine and Perimount bovine pericardial valves

Jessica Webb; Denise Parkin; Kristin Tøndel; Panagiotis Simitsis; James Roxburgh; John B. Chambers

doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezy113

A comparison of early redo surgery rates in Mosaic porcine and Perimount bovine pericardial valves

Jessica Webb^*, Denise Parkin, Kristin Tøndel, Panagiotis Simitsis, James Roxburgh, John B. Chambers

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES The objective of this study was to compare rates of redo surgery for the Medtronic Mosaic 305 A Porcine Prosthesis and the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Pericardial Aortic Bioprosthesis 2900. METHODS This was a single-centre retrospective observational study. We included all 1018 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with a Mosaic (n = 216) or Perimount (n = 809) bioprosthesis between October 2000 and August 2008. The total follow-up was 1508 patient-years for the Mosaic valve and 5813 for the Perimount valve. The maximal follow-up and interquartile range were 14.8 and 7.0 years for the Mosaic valve and 15.1 and 5.6 years for the Perimount valve, respectively. A propensity score-weighted version of the Cox model, Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate regression model was used. RESULTS Despite no statistical difference in the number of non-structural valve deterioration cases between valves, redo surgery occurred earlier in 10 (4.6%) Mosaic than for 17 (2.1%) Perimount valves (P = 0.02) and was required for structural valve deterioration in 5 (2.3%) Mosaic valves when compared with 7 (0.9%; P = 0.04) Perimount valves. Four of 5 Mosaic failures occurred before 5 years, whereas all Perimount failures occurred after 5 years. Redo surgery for non-structural valve deterioration occurred in 3 patients with Mosaic valves (1.4%) and no patients with Perimount valves. Surgery for the remaining patients with Perimount valves was due to infection or aortic disease. CONCLUSIONS Early redo surgery for structural valve degeneration was uncommon but occurred earlier for the Mosaic porcine than the Perimount bovine pericardial replacement aortic valve.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	724-728
Number of pages	5
Journal	European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery
Volume	54
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezy113
Publication status	Published - 1 Oct 2018

Keywords

Mosaic replacement valve
Perimount replacement valve
Redo surgery
Structural valve degeneration

Access to Document

10.1093/ejcts/ezy113

Cite this

@article{0762ac7d7ee44701b1dfbd41e2ec7361,

title = "A comparison of early redo surgery rates in Mosaic porcine and Perimount bovine pericardial valves",

abstract = "OBJECTIVES The objective of this study was to compare rates of redo surgery for the Medtronic Mosaic 305 A Porcine Prosthesis and the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Pericardial Aortic Bioprosthesis 2900. METHODS This was a single-centre retrospective observational study. We included all 1018 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with a Mosaic (n = 216) or Perimount (n = 809) bioprosthesis between October 2000 and August 2008. The total follow-up was 1508 patient-years for the Mosaic valve and 5813 for the Perimount valve. The maximal follow-up and interquartile range were 14.8 and 7.0 years for the Mosaic valve and 15.1 and 5.6 years for the Perimount valve, respectively. A propensity score-weighted version of the Cox model, Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate regression model was used. RESULTS Despite no statistical difference in the number of non-structural valve deterioration cases between valves, redo surgery occurred earlier in 10 (4.6%) Mosaic than for 17 (2.1%) Perimount valves (P = 0.02) and was required for structural valve deterioration in 5 (2.3%) Mosaic valves when compared with 7 (0.9%; P = 0.04) Perimount valves. Four of 5 Mosaic failures occurred before 5 years, whereas all Perimount failures occurred after 5 years. Redo surgery for non-structural valve deterioration occurred in 3 patients with Mosaic valves (1.4%) and no patients with Perimount valves. Surgery for the remaining patients with Perimount valves was due to infection or aortic disease. CONCLUSIONS Early redo surgery for structural valve degeneration was uncommon but occurred earlier for the Mosaic porcine than the Perimount bovine pericardial replacement aortic valve.",

keywords = "Mosaic replacement valve, Perimount replacement valve, Redo surgery, Structural valve degeneration",

author = "Jessica Webb and Denise Parkin and Kristin T{\o}ndel and Panagiotis Simitsis and James Roxburgh and Chambers, {John B.}",

year = "2018",

month = oct,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1093/ejcts/ezy113",

language = "English",

volume = "54",

pages = "724--728",

journal = "European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery",

issn = "1010-7940",

publisher = "Oxford University Press (OUP)",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of early redo surgery rates in Mosaic porcine and Perimount bovine pericardial valves

AU - Webb, Jessica

AU - Parkin, Denise

AU - Tøndel, Kristin

AU - Simitsis, Panagiotis

AU - Roxburgh, James

AU - Chambers, John B.

PY - 2018/10/1

Y1 - 2018/10/1

N2 - OBJECTIVES The objective of this study was to compare rates of redo surgery for the Medtronic Mosaic 305 A Porcine Prosthesis and the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Pericardial Aortic Bioprosthesis 2900. METHODS This was a single-centre retrospective observational study. We included all 1018 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with a Mosaic (n = 216) or Perimount (n = 809) bioprosthesis between October 2000 and August 2008. The total follow-up was 1508 patient-years for the Mosaic valve and 5813 for the Perimount valve. The maximal follow-up and interquartile range were 14.8 and 7.0 years for the Mosaic valve and 15.1 and 5.6 years for the Perimount valve, respectively. A propensity score-weighted version of the Cox model, Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate regression model was used. RESULTS Despite no statistical difference in the number of non-structural valve deterioration cases between valves, redo surgery occurred earlier in 10 (4.6%) Mosaic than for 17 (2.1%) Perimount valves (P = 0.02) and was required for structural valve deterioration in 5 (2.3%) Mosaic valves when compared with 7 (0.9%; P = 0.04) Perimount valves. Four of 5 Mosaic failures occurred before 5 years, whereas all Perimount failures occurred after 5 years. Redo surgery for non-structural valve deterioration occurred in 3 patients with Mosaic valves (1.4%) and no patients with Perimount valves. Surgery for the remaining patients with Perimount valves was due to infection or aortic disease. CONCLUSIONS Early redo surgery for structural valve degeneration was uncommon but occurred earlier for the Mosaic porcine than the Perimount bovine pericardial replacement aortic valve.

AB - OBJECTIVES The objective of this study was to compare rates of redo surgery for the Medtronic Mosaic 305 A Porcine Prosthesis and the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Pericardial Aortic Bioprosthesis 2900. METHODS This was a single-centre retrospective observational study. We included all 1018 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with a Mosaic (n = 216) or Perimount (n = 809) bioprosthesis between October 2000 and August 2008. The total follow-up was 1508 patient-years for the Mosaic valve and 5813 for the Perimount valve. The maximal follow-up and interquartile range were 14.8 and 7.0 years for the Mosaic valve and 15.1 and 5.6 years for the Perimount valve, respectively. A propensity score-weighted version of the Cox model, Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate regression model was used. RESULTS Despite no statistical difference in the number of non-structural valve deterioration cases between valves, redo surgery occurred earlier in 10 (4.6%) Mosaic than for 17 (2.1%) Perimount valves (P = 0.02) and was required for structural valve deterioration in 5 (2.3%) Mosaic valves when compared with 7 (0.9%; P = 0.04) Perimount valves. Four of 5 Mosaic failures occurred before 5 years, whereas all Perimount failures occurred after 5 years. Redo surgery for non-structural valve deterioration occurred in 3 patients with Mosaic valves (1.4%) and no patients with Perimount valves. Surgery for the remaining patients with Perimount valves was due to infection or aortic disease. CONCLUSIONS Early redo surgery for structural valve degeneration was uncommon but occurred earlier for the Mosaic porcine than the Perimount bovine pericardial replacement aortic valve.

KW - Mosaic replacement valve

KW - Perimount replacement valve

KW - Redo surgery

KW - Structural valve degeneration

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054294375&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/ejcts/ezy113

DO - 10.1093/ejcts/ezy113

M3 - Article

C2 - 29579171

AN - SCOPUS:85054294375

SN - 1010-7940

VL - 54

SP - 724

EP - 728

JO - European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery

JF - European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery

IS - 4

ER -

A comparison of early redo surgery rates in Mosaic porcine and Perimount bovine pericardial valves

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this