Survival

Author Year No. of
Patients
Type of
Study
Type of
Valve
Mean Age at Implant Mean
Follow-Up (yrs)
5 years
(%)
10 years
(%)
15 years
(%)
20 years
(%)
25 years
(%)
Linearized rate
(% per pt year)
Khan et al, 1998 248 Retrospective Hancock Porcine 64 7.3 - 50 29 14 - -
Poirier et al, 1998 149 Prospective Follow-Up *CE bovine pericardial 65 4.8 84 58 - - - -
Jamieson et al, 1999 1266 Prospective Follow-Up CE supra-annular porcine 64 7.3 86 (<40 yo)
84 (41-50 yo)
81 (51-60 yo)
65 (61-70 yo)
56 (>70 yo)
75 (<40 yo)
77 (41-50 yo)
64 (51-60 yo)
38 (61-70 yo)
29 (>70 yo)
- - - -
Jamieson et al, 1999 429 Prospective Follow-Up CE perimount pericardial 61 7.3 95 (<40 yo)
96 (41-50 yo)
75 (51-60 yo)
75 (61-70 yo)
65 (>70 yo)
87 (<40 yo)
78 (41-50 yo)
64 (51-60 yo)
57 (61-70 yo)
26 (>70 yo)
- - - -
David et al, 2001 310 Prospective Follow-Up Hancock II porcine 65 6.9 69 52 30 - - -
Marchand et al, 2001 435 Prospective Follow-Up CE perimount pericardial 61 8.1 76 57 37 (14yr) - - 5.3
Rizzoli et al, 2006 484 Prospective Follow-Up Hancock II porcine 66 12 77 57 39 - - -
Jamieson et al, 2009 1135 Prospective Follow-Up CE supra-annular porcine 65 6.4 - - 18 5 - 9.4
Myken et al, 2009 194 Prospective Follow-Up St. Jude Medical Biocor 65 6.2 - - - 16 - -
Riess et al, 2010 47 Prospective Follow-Up Medtronic Mosaic porcine 67 8.2 - - 51 (13yr) - - 3.3
Jamieson et al, 2011 232 Prospective Follow-Up Medtronic Mosaic porcine 67 7.3 - 59 44 (12yr) - - 5.1
Aaron J. Weiss M.D., Stephen M. Spindel M.D., and Farzan Filsoufi M.D.
* CE = Carpentier-Edwards
  1. Khan SS, Chaux A, Blanche C, et al. A 20-year experience with the Hancock porcine xenograft in the elderly. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66:S35-9.
  2. Poirier NC, Pelletier LC, Pellerin M, et al. 15-year experience with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66:S57-61.
  3. Jamieson WR, Marchand MA, Pelletier CL, et al. Structural valve deterioration in mitral replacement surgery: comparison of Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular porcine and perimount pericardial bioprostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999;118:297-304.
  4. David TE, Ivanov J, Armstrong S, et al. Late results of heart valve replacement with the Hancock II bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001;121:268-77.
  5. Marchand MA, Aupart MR, Norton R, et al. Fifteen-year experience with the mitral Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71:S236-9.
  6. Rizzoli G, Mirone S, Ius P, et al. Fifteen-year results with the Hancock II valve: a multicenter experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;132:602-9, 609 e1-4.
  7. Jamieson WR, Gudas VM, Burr LH, et al. Mitral valve disease: if the mitral valve is not reparable/failed repair, is bioprosthesis suitable for replacement? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2009;35:104-10.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Jamieson WR, Riess FC, Raudkivi PJ, et al. Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis: assessment of 12-year performance. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011;142:302-7 e2.