Nine Years Experience with 1287 Carpentier-Edwards® Porcine Bioprostheses

  • A. J. Acinapura
  • D. M. Rose
  • J. N. CunninghamJr.
  • I. J. Jacobowitz
  • M. D. Kramer
  • Z. Zisbrod


The durability and functional results of porcine prosthetic valves remain controversial. In order to assess these parameters, 1287 porcine prosthetic valve insertions from January 1977 through September 1986 were reviewed. There were 523 mitral (MVR), 518 aortic (AVR), 238 combined AVR + MVR, and 8 tricuspid (TVR) implants. The average age was 59 years. The malefemale ratio was 68%:32%. The majority of patients were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III or IV preoperatively. Rheumatic or calcific valvulitis was present in 78%, myxomatous degeneration in 10%, and infective endocarditis in 12%. Valve replacement was performed utilizing moderate hypothermia (22 °G) and cold blood cardioplegia (10 °C). The operative mortality for MVR was 2.8% (14/523), for AVR was 1.8% (19/518), for AVR 4- MVR was 4.8% (11/238), and 0% for TVR (0/8). Thromboembolic events occurred in 7 MVR patients (1.3%), 5 AVR patients (1%), and 4 combined AVR/MVR patients (4%). Primary valve failure occurred in 20 MVR (3%) and 18 AVR cases (2%). Endocarditis has occurred in 15 patients (1.1%). Gated scans (6 to 12 months postoperative) have shown stable or improved left ventricular function. Endo cardiograms (1 to 9 years postoperative) demonstrated excellent valve function in 90% of the patients. Survival at 9 years has been 85% from all causes and 92% from cardiac deaths. These results support continued use of the porcine prosthetic valve in valvular heart disease.


Valve Replacement Infective Endocarditis Prosthetic Valve Mitral Valve Replacement Heart Valve Replacement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cohn LH, Koster JK, Mee RBB, et al. Long-term follow-up of the Hancock bioprosthetic heart valve: A 6-year review. Circulation 1979; 60:93.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oyer PE, Stinson EB, Reitz BA, et al. Long-term evaluation of the porcine xenograft bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1979; 78:343.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Williams JB, Karp RB, Kirklin JW, et al. Considerations in selection and management of patients undergoing valve replacement with glutaraldehyde-fixed porcine bioprostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 1980; 30:247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Craver JM, Jones EL, McKeown P, et al. Porcine cardiac xenograft valves: Analysis of survival, valve failure, and explanation. Ann Thorac Surg 1982; 34:16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oyer PE, Stinson EB, Rossiter SJ, et al. Extended experience with the Hancock bioprosthesis. In Sebening F, Klovekorn WP, Meisner H, Struck E (eds): Bioprosthetic Cardiac Valves; Deutsches Herzzentrum, Munich 1979; pp 47–59.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Angell WW, Angell JD, Kosek JC. Twelve-year experience with glutaraldehyde-preserved porcine xenografts. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1982; 83:493.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oyer PE, Stinson EB, Griepp RB. Starr-Edwards and Hancock prostheses: Comparative analysis of late morbidity and mortality. Ann Surg 1977; 186:301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohn LH, Sanders JG Jr, Collins JJ Jr. Aortic valve replacement with the Hancock porcine xenografts. Ann Thorac Surg 1976; 22:221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stinson EB, Griepp RB, Oyer PE, et al. Long-term experience with porcine aortic valve xenografts. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1977; 73:54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mcintosh CL, Michaels LL, Morrow AG, et al. Atrioventricular valve replacement with the Hancock porcine xenografts: A five-year clinical experience. Surgery 1975; 78:768.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hannah H, Reis RL. Current status of porcine heterograft prostheses—a 5-year appraisal. Circulation 1976; 54(Suppl III):27.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stinson EB, Griepp RB, Shumway NE. Clinical experience with a porcine aortic valve xenograft for mitral valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 1974; 18:391.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cevese PG. Long-term results of 212 xenograft valve replacements. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 1975; 16:639.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. J. Acinapura
  • D. M. Rose
  • J. N. CunninghamJr.
  • I. J. Jacobowitz
  • M. D. Kramer
  • Z. Zisbrod

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations