Review article
The Use of Biological Heart Valves: Types of Prosthesis, Durability and Complications
Dtsch Arztebl Int 2019; 116: 423-30. DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2019.0423
; ; ; ; ;
| 1. | Yacoub MH, Takkenberg JJ: Will heart valve tissue engineering change the world? Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med 2005; 2: 60–1 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 2. | Beckmann A, Funkat AK, Lewandowski J, et al.: German Heart Surgery Report 2016: the annual updated registry of the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2017; 65: 505–18 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 3. | Weber A, Noureddine H, Englberger L, et al.: Ten-year comparison of pericardial tissue valves versus mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 60 years of age. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012; 144: 1075–83 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 4. | McClure RS, Narayanasamy N, Wiegerinck E, et al.: Late outcomes for aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: up to 17-year follow-up in 1,000 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2010; 89: 1410–6 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 5. | Chambers JB, Rajani R, Parkin D, et al.: Bovine pericardial versus porcine stented replacement aortic valves: early results of a randomized comparison of the Perimount and the Mosaic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008; 136: 1142–8 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 6. | Suri RM, Zehr KJ, Sundt TM3rd, et al.: Left ventricular mass regression after porcine versus bovine aortic valve replacement: a randomized comparison. Ann Thorac Surg 2009; 88: 1232–7 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 7. | Ruzicka DJ, Hettich I, Hutter A, et al.: The complete supraannular concept: in vivo hemodynamics of bovine and porcine aortic bioprostheses. Circulation 2009; 120: S139–45 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 8. | Hickey GL, Grant SW, Bridgewater B, et al.: A comparison of outcomes between bovine pericardial and porcine valves in 38,040 patients in England and Wales over 10 years. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 47: 1067–74 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 9. | Andreas M, Wallner S, Ruetzler K, et al.: Comparable long-term results for porcine and pericardial prostheses after isolated aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 48: 557–61 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central |
| 10. | Grunkemeier GL, Furnary AP, Wu Y, Wang L, Starr A: Durability of pericardial versus porcine bioprosthetic heart valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012; 144: 1381–6 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 11. | Webb J, Parkin D, Tøndel K, Simitsis P, Roxburgh J, Chambers JB: A comparison of early redo surgery rates in Mosaic porcine and Perimount bovine pericardial valves. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2018; 54: 724–8 CrossRefMEDLINE |
| 12. | Bavaria JE, Desai ND, Cheung A, et al.: The St Jude Medical Trifecta aortic pericardial valve: results from a global, multicenter, prospective clinical study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 147: 590–7 CrossRefMEDLINE |
| 13. | Colli A, Marchetto G, Salizzoni S, et al.: The TRIBECA study: (TRI)fecta (B)ioprosthesis (E)valuation versus (C)arpentier Magna-Ease in (A)ortic position. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 49: 478–85 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 14. | Anselmi A, Ruggieri VG, Lelong B, et al.: Mid-term durability of the Trifecta bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2017; 153: 21–8.e1 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 15. | van Geldorp MW, Eric Jamieson WR, Kappetein AP, et al.: Patient outcome after aortic valve replacement with a mechanical or biological prosthesis: weighing lifetime anticoagulant-related event risk against reoperation risk. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137: 881–6, 886e1–5 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 16. | Pechlivanidis K, Onorati F, Petrilli G, et al.: In which patients is transcatheter aortic valve replacement potentially better indicated than surgery for redo aortic valve disease? Long-term results of a 10-year surgical experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 148: 500–8.e1 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 17. | Webb JG, Mack MJ, White JM, et al.: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation within degenerated aortic surgical bioprostheses: PARTNER 2 Valve-in-Valve Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69: 2253–62 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 18. | Goldstone AB, Chiu P, Baiocchi M, et al.: Mechanical or biologic prostheses for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 1847–57 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 19. | Altarabsheh SE, Deo SV, Dunlay SM, et al.: Tissue valves are preferable for patients with end-stage renal disease: an aggregate meta-analysis. J Card Surg 2016; 31: 507–14 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 20. | Ensminger S, Fujita B, Bauer T, et al.: Rapid deployment versus conventional bioprosthetic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 71: 1417–28 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 21. | Klein P, Klop IDG, Kloppenburg GLT, van Putte BP: Planning for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: key steps for patient assessment. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2018; 53: ii3–8 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 22. | Laufer G, Haverich A, Andreas M, et al.: Long-term outcomes of a rapid deployment aortic valve: data up to 5 years. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2017; 52: 281–7 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 23. | Shrestha M, Fischlein T, Meuris B, et al.: European multicentre experience with the sutureless Perceval valve: clinical and haemodynamic outcomes up to 5 years in over 700 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 49: 234–41 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 24. | Tasca G, Vismara R, Mangini A, et al.: Comparison of the performance of a sutureless bioprosthesis with two pericardial stented valves on small annuli: an in vitro study. Ann Thorac Surg 2017; 103: 139–44 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 25. | Gersak B, Fischlein T, Folliguet TA, et al.: Sutureless, rapid deployment valves and stented bioprosthesis in aortic valve replacement: recommendations of an international expert consensus panel. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 49: 709–18 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 26. | Meco M, Montisci A, Miceli A, et al.: Sutureless Perceval aortic valve versus conventional stented bioprostheses: meta-analysis of postoperative and midterm results in isolated aortic valve replacement. J Am Heart Assoc 2018; 7: e006091 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central |
| 27. | Della Barbera M, Basso C, Valente M, Thiene G: Pre-implantation collapse in the Sorin Perceval S sutureless prosthesis does not affect pericardial graft structure. Cardiovasc Pathol 2013; 22: e43 CrossRef |
| 28. | Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, et al.: Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2016; 374: 1609–20 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 29. | Mack MJ, Leon MB, Smith CR, et al.: 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015; 385: 2477–84 CrossRef |
| 30. | Thourani VH, Kodali S, Makkar RR, et al.: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: a propensity score analysis. Lancet 2016; 387: 2218–25 CrossRef |
| 31. | Falk V, Baumgartner H, Bax JJ, et al.: 2017 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2017; 52: 616–64 CrossRef CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 32. | Witberg G, Lador A, Yahav D, Kornowski R: Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients at low surgical risk: a meta-analysis of randomized trials and propensity score matched observational studies. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 92: 408–16 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 33. | Dvir D, Webb JG, Bleiziffer S, et al.: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves. JAMA 2014; 312: 162–70 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 34. | Mylotte D, Lange R, Martucci G, Piazza N: Transcatheter heart valve implantation for failing surgical bioprostheses: technical considerations and evidence for valve-in-valve procedures. Heart 2013; 99: 960–7 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 35. | Ye J, Cheung A, Yamashita M, et al.: Transcatheter aortic and mitralvalve-in-valve implantation for failed surgical bioprosthetic valves: an 8-year single-center experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015; 8: 1735–44 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 36. | Seiffert M, Conradi L, Baldus S, et al.: Impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation in degenerated bioprostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012; 143: 617–24 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 37. | Bleiziffer S, Erlebach M, Simonato M, et al.: Incidence, predictors and clinical outcomes of residual stenosis after aortic valve-in-valve. Heart 2018; 104: 828–34 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 38. | Husser O, Fujita B, Hengstenberg C, et al.: Conscious sedation versus general anesthesia in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the German Aortic Valve Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 11: 567–78 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 39. | Rodriguez-Gabella T, Voisine P, Puri R, Pibarot P, Rodes-Cabau J: Aortic bioprosthetic valve durability: incidence, mechanisms, predictors, and management of surgical and transcatheter valve degeneration. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 70: 1013–28 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| 40. | Marwan M, Mekkhala N, Goller M, et al.: Leaflet thrombosis following transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2018; 12: 8–13 CrossRef CrossRef |
| e1. | Fujita B, Ensminger S, Bauer T, et al.: Trends in practice and outcomes from 2011 to 2015 for surgical aortic valve replacement: an update from the German Aortic Valve Registry on 42 776 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2018; 53: 552–9 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| e2. | Puri R, Auffret V, Rodes-Cabau J: Bioprosthetic valve thrombosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69: 2193–211 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| e3. | Flameng W, Rega F, Vercalsteren M, Herijgers P, Meuris B: Antimineralization treatment and patient-prosthesis mismatch are major determinants of the onset and incidence of structural valve degeneration in bioprosthetic heart valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 147: 1219–24 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| e4. | Farivar RS, Cohn LH: Hypercholesterolemia is a risk factor for bioprosthetic valve calcification and explantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003; 126: 969–75 CrossRef |
| e5. | Bourguignon T, Bouquiaux-Stablo AL, Candolfi P, et al.: Very long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valve in aortic position. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 99: 831–7 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| e6. | Minami K, Zittermann A, Schulte-Eistrup S, Koertke H, Korfer R: Mitroflow synergy prostheses for aortic valve replacement: 19 years experience with 1,516 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2005; 80: 1699–705 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| e7. | David TE, Armstrong S, Maganti M: Hancock II bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: the gold standard of bioprosthetic valves durability? Ann Thorac Surg 2010; 90: 775–81 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| e8. | Myken PS, Bech-Hansen O: A 20-year experience of 1712 patients with the Biocor porcine bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137: 76–81 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| e9. | Bach DS, Kon ND: Long-term clinical outcomes 15 years after aortic valve replacement with the Freestyle stentless aortic bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 2014; 97: 544–51 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| e10. | Anselmi A, Flecher E, Ruggieri VG, et al.: Long-term results of the Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis in the aortic position. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 147: 1884–91 CrossRefMEDLINE |
| e11. | Santarpino G, Vogt F, Pfeiffer S, et al.: Sutureless versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implant: a propensity score matching study. J Heart Valve Dis 2017; 26: 255–61. |
| e12. | Généreux P, Head SJ, Hahn R, et al.: Paravalvular leak after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the new Achilles‘ heel? A comprehensive review of the literature. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 61: 1125–36 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| e13. | Wagner G, Steiner S, Gartlehner G, et al.: Comparison of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with other approaches to treat aortic valve stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 2019; 8: 44 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central |
| e14. | Schoechlin S, Brennemann T, Allali A, et al.: Hemodynamic classification of paravalvular leakage after transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with angiographic or echocardiographic classification for prediction of 1-year mortality. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 91: E56–63 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| e15. | Takagi H, Umemoto T: Impact of paravalvular aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation on survival. Int J Cardiol 2016; 221: 46–51 CrossRef PubMed Central |
| e16. | Abdel-Wahab M, Zahn R, Gerckens U, et al.: Predictors of 1-year mortality in patients with aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: an analysis from the multicentre German TAVI registry. Heart 2014; 100: 1250–6 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| e17. | Schaefer A, Dickow J, Schoen G, et al.: Stentless vs. stented bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: a case matched comparison of long-term follow-up and subgroup analysis of patients with native valve endocarditis. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0191171 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central |
| e18. | van der Straaten EP, Rademakers LM, van Straten AH, Houterman S, Tan ME, Soliman Hamad MA: Mid-term haemodynamic and clinical results after aortic valve replacement using the Freedom Solo stentless bioprosthesis versus the Carpentier Edwards Perimount stented bioprosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 49: 1174–80 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| e19. | Borger MA, Prasongsukarn K, Armstrong S, Feindel CM, David TE: Stentless aortic valve reoperations: a surgical challenge. Ann Thorac Surg 2007; 84: 737–43; discussion 43–4 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| e20. | Rouzé S, Flécher E, Revest M, et al.: Infective endocarditis with paravalvular extension: 35-year experience. Ann Thorac Surg 2016; 102: 549–55 CrossRef MEDLINE |
| e21. | Klieverik LMA, Yacoub MH, Edwards S, et al.: Surgical treatment of active native aortic valve endocarditis with allografts and mechanical prostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 2009; 88: 1814–21 CrossRef MEDLINE |
