Carpentier-Edwards Standard Porcine Bioprosthesis: Primary Tissue Failure (Structural Valve Deterioration) by Age Groups

Echocardiography in Pregnancy: Part 1

“…RV outflow tract was mildly dilated and there was intrinsic atrial rhythm (86-88 bpm) without RV pacing Specifics include durability of valve, thromboembolic risk, and the use of anticoagulation. Previously, it was reported that the rate of bioprosthetic valve degeneration in young patients (ages 16-39) was high, 50 % at 10 years and 90 % at 15 years [39]. Overall, about 50 % of women of childbearing age will require valve replacement 10 years after the initial operation with a bioprosthetic valve, and this risk is greatest when the bioprosthesis is in the mitral position [40].…”

Emerging Trends in Heart Valve Engineering: Part IV. Computational Modeling and Experimental Studies

“…149 High pressure fixation of first generation of bioprosthetic valves in glutaraldehyde enhanced the durability of these valves but resulted in early calcification. 23,48,72,74 The second generation of heart valves treated by zero to low pressure fixation (e.g., the Hancock II porcine valve, Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, MN, and the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount TM , Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA), have been implanted in patients for more than two decades with minimal problem. 27,36,109 Alternatively, third generation of heart valves such as Carpentier-Edwards Magna model of the Perimount TM pericardial prosthesis (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) and the Mosaic porcine valve (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN) have only been implanted for approximately 13 years.…”

Which Valve to Who: Prosthetic Valve Selection for Aortic Valve Surgery

“…The importance of that study is that all of the patients included in the study have similar characteristic features (Fayez 2005). In studies comparing two different type heterografts used in young patients (Hancock and CarpentierEdwards porcine bioprostheses), a structural valve deterioration in a rate of 50-70% in 10 years follow-up was demonstrated (Yum 1995;Jamieson 1988). Similarly, North et al reported that structural valve deterioration in 10 years follow-up can be seen in high rates as 82% [preg9/5].…”

“…Similarly, North et al reported in a recent study that homografts are more resistant in comparison with bioprosthetic valves in 10 years follow-up and structural valve detorioration is developed more infrequently (72% vs. 18% ) (North 1999). It was shown that there was less structural failure requiring reoperation in homografts in comparison with biological grafts (Yum, 1995;Jamieson, 1988). Studies evaluating the effects of pregnancy on homografts are even more limited.…”

“…In these patients, with the avoidance of an anticoagulation therapy during the pregnancy via biological valve replacement (De Santo, 2005), in experienced centers Ross procedure is offered as an alternative therapy (Bonow, 2008). Additionally, it is suggested that not only the mechanical prosthetic valves or anticoagulant agent usage, but at the same time the acceleration of the structural degeneration of biological valves is an important issue needed to be avoided during the pregnancy (Jamieson, 1988). The pulmonary autograft procedure in patient with aortic valve disease is an alternative to the prosthetic valves and the aortic allograft.…”