From 1976 to 1988, 1,593 patients underwent valve replacement with a porcine (878 patients) or a pericardial bioprosthesis (715 patients). There were 701 aortic, 678 mitral, and 214 multiple-valve replacements. Follow-up was obtained for 1,559 patients (98%). Early mortality was 9% (79 patients) in the porcine valve group and 5% (37 patients) among patients with a pericardial valve (p < 0.01). Late survival after replacement with porcine valves was 80% ± 1% and 62% ± 3% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. With pericardial valves, 5-year survival was 79% ± 2%. Among valve-related complications, rates of freedom from thromboembolism, endocarditis, and hemorrhage after 6 years were similar for both valve groups. Freedom from reoperation at 6 years was also similar after aortic (96% versus 91%) or multiple-valve replacement (95% versus 88%). However, for mitral valve replacement, freedom from reoperation was significantly better with porcine valves than with pericardial valves at 6 years (92% versus 68%; p < 0.001). This difference was mainly due to the Ionescu-Shiley valve, which accounted for 83% of primary tissue failures among pericardial bioprostheses implanted in the mitral position ( 10 12 patients). After 6 years, freedom from primary tissue failure of mitral valves was 92% ± 2% with porcine and 70% ± 11% with pericardial bioprostheses (p < 0.0001). The degree of clinical improvement among survivors was similar with both valve types. Thus, in the aortic position, pericardial valves compare with porcine valves up to 6 years, whereas in the mitral position, the durability of the former is significantly less, mainly because of the suboptimal performance of the Ionescu-Shiley pericardial bioprosthesis. © 1989.
Pelletier, L. C., Carrier, M., Leclerc, Y., Lepage, G., deGuise, P., & Dyrda, I. (1989). Porcine versus pericardial bioprostheses: A comparison of late results in 1,593 patients. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 47(3), 352–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4975(89)90373-1