Brittany A. Zwischenberger MD, MHSc , Carmelo Milano MD , John Haney MD , Jeffrey G. Gaca MD , Jacob Schroder MD , Keith Carr BS , Donald D. Glower MD
{"title":"猪和心包假体在三尖瓣置换术中的耐用性","authors":"Brittany A. Zwischenberger MD, MHSc , Carmelo Milano MD , John Haney MD , Jeffrey G. Gaca MD , Jacob Schroder MD , Keith Carr BS , Donald D. Glower MD","doi":"10.1016/j.xjon.2024.06.017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Biologic valves dominate tricuspid valve replacement, yet data on different valve types are lacking. We compare the survival and durability of porcine and pericardial tricuspid prostheses.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing tricuspid valve replacement with porcine (N = 542) or pericardial (N = 144) prostheses between 1975 and 2022 was performed using a prospectively maintained institutional database. Concurrent procedures were included. Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression were performed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Patients who received the porcine prosthesis, compared with pericardial, were younger (56 ± 17 years vs 63 ± 15 years) and more likely to present urgently (55% porcine, 44% pericardial); however, there were no differences in redo status or concomitant operations. Ten-year survival was not significantly different between the porcine and pericardial groups (35% ± 3% vs 28% ± 4%, respectively, <em>P</em> = .2). The 10-year cumulative incidence of structural valve deterioration (porcine 9% ± 2%, pericardial 11% ± 3%, <em>P</em> = .8), reoperation for structural valve deterioration (porcine 5% ± 1%, pericardial 4% ± 2%, <em>P</em> = .06), and severe regurgitation (porcine 4% ± 1%, pericardial 5% ± 2%, <em>P</em> = .7) were not significantly different between groups. The failure mode was similar, with no difference in severe stenosis (porcine 32/47 [68%], pericardial 11/16 [69%], <em>P</em> = .9) or severe regurgitation (porcine 18/47 [38%], pericardial 7/16 [44%], <em>P</em> = .7). On regression analysis, valve type was not associated with survival (<em>P</em> = .6). Valve type was not associated with structural valve deterioration (<em>P</em> = .1) or reoperation for structural valve deterioration (<em>P</em> = .9).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>In our series, there were no differences in survival or durability between porcine and pericardial valves. In most patients undergoing tricuspid valve replacement, the choice of porcine versus pericardial prosthesis is unlikely to affect clinical outcomes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74032,"journal":{"name":"JTCVS open","volume":"21 ","pages":"Pages 78-87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Durability of porcine and pericardial prostheses in tricuspid valve replacement\",\"authors\":\"Brittany A. Zwischenberger MD, MHSc , Carmelo Milano MD , John Haney MD , Jeffrey G. Gaca MD , Jacob Schroder MD , Keith Carr BS , Donald D. Glower MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.xjon.2024.06.017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Biologic valves dominate tricuspid valve replacement, yet data on different valve types are lacking. We compare the survival and durability of porcine and pericardial tricuspid prostheses.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing tricuspid valve replacement with porcine (N = 542) or pericardial (N = 144) prostheses between 1975 and 2022 was performed using a prospectively maintained institutional database. Concurrent procedures were included. Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression were performed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Patients who received the porcine prosthesis, compared with pericardial, were younger (56 ± 17 years vs 63 ± 15 years) and more likely to present urgently (55% porcine, 44% pericardial); however, there were no differences in redo status or concomitant operations. Ten-year survival was not significantly different between the porcine and pericardial groups (35% ± 3% vs 28% ± 4%, respectively, <em>P</em> = .2). The 10-year cumulative incidence of structural valve deterioration (porcine 9% ± 2%, pericardial 11% ± 3%, <em>P</em> = .8), reoperation for structural valve deterioration (porcine 5% ± 1%, pericardial 4% ± 2%, <em>P</em> = .06), and severe regurgitation (porcine 4% ± 1%, pericardial 5% ± 2%, <em>P</em> = .7) were not significantly different between groups. The failure mode was similar, with no difference in severe stenosis (porcine 32/47 [68%], pericardial 11/16 [69%], <em>P</em> = .9) or severe regurgitation (porcine 18/47 [38%], pericardial 7/16 [44%], <em>P</em> = .7). On regression analysis, valve type was not associated with survival (<em>P</em> = .6). Valve type was not associated with structural valve deterioration (<em>P</em> = .1) or reoperation for structural valve deterioration (<em>P</em> = .9).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>In our series, there were no differences in survival or durability between porcine and pericardial valves. In most patients undergoing tricuspid valve replacement, the choice of porcine versus pericardial prosthesis is unlikely to affect clinical outcomes.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74032,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JTCVS open\",\"volume\":\"21 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 78-87\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JTCVS open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666273624001773\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JTCVS open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666273624001773","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Durability of porcine and pericardial prostheses in tricuspid valve replacement
Objective
Biologic valves dominate tricuspid valve replacement, yet data on different valve types are lacking. We compare the survival and durability of porcine and pericardial tricuspid prostheses.
Methods
A retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing tricuspid valve replacement with porcine (N = 542) or pericardial (N = 144) prostheses between 1975 and 2022 was performed using a prospectively maintained institutional database. Concurrent procedures were included. Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression were performed.
Results
Patients who received the porcine prosthesis, compared with pericardial, were younger (56 ± 17 years vs 63 ± 15 years) and more likely to present urgently (55% porcine, 44% pericardial); however, there were no differences in redo status or concomitant operations. Ten-year survival was not significantly different between the porcine and pericardial groups (35% ± 3% vs 28% ± 4%, respectively, P = .2). The 10-year cumulative incidence of structural valve deterioration (porcine 9% ± 2%, pericardial 11% ± 3%, P = .8), reoperation for structural valve deterioration (porcine 5% ± 1%, pericardial 4% ± 2%, P = .06), and severe regurgitation (porcine 4% ± 1%, pericardial 5% ± 2%, P = .7) were not significantly different between groups. The failure mode was similar, with no difference in severe stenosis (porcine 32/47 [68%], pericardial 11/16 [69%], P = .9) or severe regurgitation (porcine 18/47 [38%], pericardial 7/16 [44%], P = .7). On regression analysis, valve type was not associated with survival (P = .6). Valve type was not associated with structural valve deterioration (P = .1) or reoperation for structural valve deterioration (P = .9).
Conclusions
In our series, there were no differences in survival or durability between porcine and pericardial valves. In most patients undergoing tricuspid valve replacement, the choice of porcine versus pericardial prosthesis is unlikely to affect clinical outcomes.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
