Stented Bioprosthetic Valves

  • Giuseppe SantarpinoEmail author
  • Shahzad G. Raja


Extension of life expectancy in the last two decades has led to an increase in elderly patients being referred for valvular surgery. This applies particularly to aortic valve replacement for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, where biological tissue valves are generally considered the device of choice for older patients. Aortic valve bioprostheses are commonly implanted in the current era—also in younger patients—as they may obviate the need for anticoagulation while providing better hemodynamic performance and a more favorable quality of life. The steady increase in the use of biological valves has prompted the development of several different models of conventional stented bioprostheses. At present, there are four main types of stented aortic bioprostheses that compete in the market: the LivaNova Crown PRT (LivaNova Group, Burnaby, Canada), the St. Jude Medical Trifecta (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN), the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna Ease (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA), and the Medtronic Mosaic Ultra (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN). The two most commonly used stented bioprosthetic valves in the mitral position include the Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Plus Mitral heart valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) and Medtronic Mosaic Mitral valve (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN). The purpose of this chapter is to describe the features of these latest stented bioprosthetic valve models and to provide an overview of available performance data.


Stented aortic bioprostheses Stented bioprosthetic valves Stented mitral bioprostheses Stented pericardial xenograft Stented porcine xenograft 


  1. 1.
    Zoghbi WA, Chambers JB, Dumesnil JG, et al. American Society of Echocardiography's Guidelines and Standards Committee; Task Force on Prosthetic Valves; American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Committee; Cardiac Imaging Committee of the American Heart Association; European Association of Echocardiography; European Society of Cardiology; Japanese Society of Echocardiography; Canadian Society of Echocardiography; American College of Cardiology Foundation; American Heart Association; European Association of Echocardiography; European Society of Cardiology; Japanese Society of Echocardiography; Canadian Society of Echocardiography. Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and Doppler ultrasound: a report From the American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Task Force on Prosthetic Valves, developed in conjunction with the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Committee, Cardiac Imaging Committee of the American Heart Association, the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography, endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography, and Canadian Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009;22:975–1014.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Conte J, Weissman N, Dearani JA, et al. A North American, prospective, multicenter assessment of the Mitroflow aortic pericardial prosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;90:144–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ISTHMUS Investigators. The Italian study on the Mitroflow postoperative results (ISTHMUS): a 20-year, multicentre evaluation of Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;39:18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sénage T, Le Tourneau T, Foucher Y, et al. Early structural valve deterioration of Mitroflow aortic bioprosthesis: mode, incidence, and impact on outcome in a large cohort of patients. Circulation. 2014;130:2012–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pfeiffer S, Fischlein T, Santarpino G. Letter by Pfeiffer et al regarding article, “Early Structural Valve Deterioration of Mitroflow Aortic Bioprosthesis: Mode, Incidence, and Impact on Outcome in a Large Cohort of Patients”. Circulation. 2015;132:e152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gerosa G, Tarzia V, Rizzoli G, Bottio T. Small aortic annulus: the hydrodynamic performances of 5 commercially available tissue valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;131:1058–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pollari F, Dinges C, Vogt F, et al. First experience with the new Sorin Crown PRT bioprosthetic aortic valve: early postoperative outcome and hemodynamic performance in 90 patients. J Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;56:939–43.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brennan JM, Edwards FH, Zhao Y, O’Brien S, Booth ME, Dokholyan RS, et al., DEcIDE AVR Research Team. Early anticoagulation of bioprosthetic aortic valves in older patients: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery National Database. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:971–7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frater RW, Seifter E, Liao K, et al. Anticalcification, proendothelial, and anti-inflammatory effect of post aldehyde polyol treatment of bioprosthetic material. In: Gabbay S, Wheatley D, editors. Advances in anticalcific and antidegenerative treatment of heart valve bioprostheses. 1st ed. Austin, TX: Silent Partners, Inc; 1997. p. 105–14.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kelly SJ, Ogle MF, Carlyle WC, et al. Biocompatibility and calcification of bioprosthetic heart valves. Society for Biomaterials, Sixth World Biomaterials Congress Transaction. 2000;1353.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vyavahare N, Hirsch D, Lerner E, et al. Prevention of bioprosthetic heart valve calcification by ethanol preincubation. Circulation. 1997;95:479–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vyavahare N, Hirsch D, Lerner E, et al. Prevention of calcification of glutaraldehyde-crosslinked porcine aortic cusps by ethanol preincubation. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;40:577–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shen M, Kara-Mostefa A, Carpentier A, et al. Effect of ethanol and ether in the prevention of calcification of bioprostheses. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;71(5 Suppl):S413–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vyavahare N, Lloyd Jones P, Hirsch D, et al. Prevention of glutaraldehyde-fixed bioprosthetic heart valve calcification by alcohol pretreatment: further mechanistic studies. J Heart Valve Dis. 2000;9:561–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dalmau MJ, González-Santos JM, López-Rodríguez J, et al. The Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna aortic xenograft: a new design with an improved hemodynamic performance. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2006;5:263–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Botzenhardt F, Eichinger WB, Guenzinger R, et al. Hemodynamic performance and incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch of the complete supraannular Perimount Magna bioprosthesis in the aortic position. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;53:226–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Botzenhardt F, Eichinger WB, Bleiziffer S, et al. Hemodynamic comparison of bioprostheses for complete supra-annular position in patients with small aortic annulus. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:2054–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Totaro P, Degno N, Zaidi A, et al. Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna bioprosthesis: a stented valve with stentless performance? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;130:1668–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dalmau MJ, González-Santos JM, López-Rodríguez J, et al. One year hemodynamic performance of the Perimount Magna pericardial xenograft and the Medtronic Mosaic bioprosthesis in the aortic position: a prospective randomized study. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2007;6:345–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wagner IM, Eichinger WB, Bleiziffer S, et al. Influence of completely supra-annular placement of bioprostheses on exercise hemodynamics in patients with a small aortic annulus. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;133:1234–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Borger MA, Nette AF, Maganti M, et al. Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna valve versus Medtronic Hancock II: a matched hemodynamic comparison. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;83:2054–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Banbury MK, Cosgrove DM, Thomas JD, et al. Hemodynamic stability during 17 years of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;73:1460–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT aortic pericardial bioprosthesis 20-year results. Data on file at Edwards Lifesciences, 2003.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aupart MR, Mirza A, Meurisse YA, et al. Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis for aortic calcified stenosis: 18-year experience with 1133 patients. J Heart Valve Dis. 2006;15:768–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Riess FC, Cramer E, Hansen L, et al. Clinical results of the Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis up to 13 years. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010;37:145–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bakhtiary F, Dzemali O, Steinseiffer U, et al. Opening and closing kinematics of fresh and calcified aortic valve prostheses: an in vitro study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;134:657–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chen W, Schoen FJ, Levy RJ. Mechanism of efficacy of 2-amino oleic acid for inhibition of calcification of glutaraldehyde-pretreated porcine bioprosthetic heart valves. Circulation. 1994;90:323–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Girardot MN, Torrianni M, Dillehay D, et al. Role of glutaraldehyde in calcification of procine heart valves: comparing cusp and wall. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995;29:793–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Eichinger WB, Botzenhardt F, Keithahn A, et al. Exercise hemodynamics of bovine versus porcine bioprostheses: a prospective randomized comparison of the mosaic and perimount aortic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;129:1056–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eichinger WB, Botzenhardt F, Guenzinger R, et al. The effective orifice area/patient aortic annulus area ratio: a better way to compare different bioprostheses? A prospective randomized comparison of the Mosaic and Perimount bioprostheses in the aortic position. J Heart Valve Dis. 2004;13:382–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Firstenberg MS, Morehead AJ, Thomas JD, Smedira NG, Cosgrove DM 3rd, Marchand MA. Short-term hemodynamic performance of the mitral Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT pericardial valve. Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Investigators. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;71(5 Suppl):S285–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Goetze S, Brechtken J, Agler DA, Thomas JD, Sabik JF 3rd, Jaber WA. In vivo short-term Doppler hemodynamic profiles of 189 Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial bioprosthetic valves in the mitral position. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2004;17:981–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Celiento M, Blasi S, De Martino A, Pratali S, Milano AD, Bortolotti U. The Mosaic mitral valve bioprosthesis: a long-term clinical and hemodynamic follow-up. Tex Heart Inst J. 2016;43:13–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jamieson WR, Riess FC, Raudkivi PJ, Metras J, Busse EF, Goldstein J, Fradet GJ. Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis: assessment of 12-year performance. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:302–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bourguignon T, Bouquiaux-Stablo AL, Loardi C, Mirza A, Candolfi P, Marchand M, Aupart MR. Very late outcomes for mitral valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: 25-year follow-up of 450 implantations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148:2004–2011.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Città di Lecce Hospital, GVM Care & ResearchLecceItaly
  2. 2.Department of Cardiac Surgery, Klinikum NürnbergParacelsus Medical UniversityNurembergGermany
  3. 3.Department of Cardiac SurgeryHarefield HospitalLondonUK

Personalised recommendations