Durability of the Carpentier-Edwards porcine bioprosthesis: Role of age and valve position

Clinical results of the Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis up to 13 years

“…5). This is in line with earlier reported survival rates of 70% after 10 years [10] and 40-77% after 15 years of implant [1,11,12], and a freedom from valve-related and unexplained death of 71-92% after 15 years of Hancock II implant [1,11] In the MVR group, 13-year survival was 51%, with a freedom from valve-related and unexplained death of 79%. This is in line with an earlier reported survival rate of 53% after 11 years [13] and 30-48% after 15 years of implant [1,11,12], and earlier freedom from valve-related or unexplained death rates of 84% after 11 years [13] and 68-86% after 15 years of implant [1,11].…”

“…This is in line with an earlier report of the Mosaic bioprosthesis [2]. In comparison, SVD was most commonly reported after $5 years of implant for the Intact valve [15], the Hancock II valve [1,11,19], the Mosaic valve [21], the CE Pericardial bioprosthesis [10,12] and the CE Perimount [13].…”

“…The rates for infective endocarditis after Mosaic bioprosthesis implant are similar to those reported for other stented porcine and pericardial valves, such as Hancock II [1,11], CE Perimount [13,24], Biocor [25], Medtronic Intact [15] and the CE standard prosthesis [12] ranging from 91% to 98%. David et al [1] reported the highest risk for endocarditis during the first year after the operation.…”

“…In the present study, freedom from thrombo-embolic events was 91% and 92% in the AVR and MVR groups. This is favourable to other bioprosthetic valves with reported rates of 80-91% after AVR [1,[10][11][12]15] and 72-92% after MVR [1,10,[11][12][13]. In this context, it seems to be important that all patients without a need for phenprocoumon (e.g., permanent AF) were treated with aspirin.…”

Mechanical resistance of a new biomaterial, ostrich pericardium, and a new method of joining tissues combining suturing and a biological adhesive

“…24,27 The theory of the concentration of load as the origin of valve failure thus becomes more convincing, within the notion of structural failure as the accepted cause of the loss of durability of the bioprosthesis. [7][8][9]14,15,22 The mean percentage of reversible deformation at rupture is considerable and very similar in the control series (AC), where it was 19.15%, and the sutured and glued (ASG) series (21.93%), showing that the latter method of joining tissues does not reduce the elasticity of the part of the sample not subjected to a concentrated load.…”