Skip to main content

Durability of porcine and pericardial prostheses in tricuspid valve replacement.

Publication ,  Conference
Zwischenberger, BA; Milano, C; Haney, J; Gaca, JG; Schroder, J; Carr, K; Glower, DD
Published in: JTCVS Open
October 2024

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.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats

Published In

JTCVS Open

DOI

EISSN

2666-2736

Publication Date

October 2024

Volume

21

Start / End Page

78 / 87

Location

Netherlands
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Zwischenberger, B. A., Milano, C., Haney, J., Gaca, J. G., Schroder, J., Carr, K., & Glower, D. D. (2024). Durability of porcine and pericardial prostheses in tricuspid valve replacement. In JTCVS Open (Vol. 21, pp. 78–87). Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjon.2024.06.017
Zwischenberger, Brittany A., Carmelo Milano, John Haney, Jeffrey G. Gaca, Jacob Schroder, Keith Carr, and Donald D. Glower. “Durability of porcine and pericardial prostheses in tricuspid valve replacement.” In JTCVS Open, 21:78–87, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjon.2024.06.017.
Zwischenberger BA, Milano C, Haney J, Gaca JG, Schroder J, Carr K, et al. Durability of porcine and pericardial prostheses in tricuspid valve replacement. In: JTCVS Open. 2024. p. 78–87.
Zwischenberger, Brittany A., et al. “Durability of porcine and pericardial prostheses in tricuspid valve replacement.JTCVS Open, vol. 21, 2024, pp. 78–87. Pubmed, doi:10.1016/j.xjon.2024.06.017.
Zwischenberger BA, Milano C, Haney J, Gaca JG, Schroder J, Carr K, Glower DD. Durability of porcine and pericardial prostheses in tricuspid valve replacement. JTCVS Open. 2024. p. 78–87.

Published In

JTCVS Open

DOI

EISSN

2666-2736

Publication Date

October 2024

Volume

21

Start / End Page

78 / 87

Location

Netherlands