Durability after aortic valve replacement with the Mitroflow versus the Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis: a single-centre experience in 2393 patients.

OBJECTIVES

This study compares the durability and risk of reoperation in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) with either a Mitroflow or a Carpentier-Edwards (CE) pericardial bioprosthesis. Since AVR with bioprosthetic valves has increased progressively in recent years as compared to mechanical valves, especially in patients aged 60-70 years, there has been renewed interest in the long-term durability of current pericardial bioprostheses.

METHODS

We compared 440 AVR with Mitroflow valves with 1953 AVR with CE pericardial valves implanted from 1999 to 2014 with regard to reoperation, reoperation for structural valve deterioration (SVD) and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Ten-year freedom from explant of any cause was higher for CE Perimount (98 ± 0.7%) than for Mitroflow (95 ± 1.4%, P < 0.01). Reasons for explant for CE Perimount were SVD (n = 2), endocarditis (n = 8) and paraprosthetic leak (n = 10). The reasons for explant for Mitroflow were SVD (n = 11), endocarditis (n = 3) SVD and pericarditis (n = 1) and paraprosthetic leak (n = 2). Ten-year freedom from explant due to SVD was higher for CE Perimount (100%) than for Mitroflow (96%) (P < 0.01). In small aortic annuli (bioprosthesis size 19-21 mm), freedom from SVD at 10 years for CE Perimount and Mitroflow was 100 versus 96%, respectively. By multivariate analysis, it was found that bioprosthesis size was not a risk factor for SVD. The choice of valve type could not be demonstrated to influence long-term survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis provides less than optimal mid- and long-term durability compared with the CE Perimount pericardial valve, especially for small aortic diameter implants (19 and 21 mm). This study hereby confirms the existence of a real risk of valvular deterioration of the Mitroflow valve that might compromise the prognosis of the patients.