Hemodynamic performance and clinical outcome of pericardial Perimount Magna and Porcine Hancock-II valves in aortic position

Background We investigated hospital and midterm outcome of patients operated for an aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a pericardial Perimount or a Porcine Hancock-II valve. Methods We analyzed 353 patients with Perimount Magna (n = 189) or Hancock-II valves (n = 164). Echocardiographic data, hospital outcome, and follow-up were collected and compared. The role of the type of valve on perioperative and midterm outcome was investigated. Results Mean age was 75.3 ± 6.8 and 74.3 ± 7.1 years (P = .17) for Perimount and Hancock-II group, respectively. Fifty-four Perimount (28.6%) and 24 patients with Hancock-II (14.6%) required urgent procedures (P = .002), including six type-A dissections and five endocarditis. EuroSCORE-II was 3.1 ± 2.7% (Perimount) and 2.7 ± 2.2% (Hancock-II). Combined procedures were performed in 115 Perimount (60.8%) and 71 patients with Hancock (43.3%); redo procedures counted for 1% and 2.4%, respectively (P = .42). Mean valve size was 23.2 ± 1.8 mm for pericardial and 23.6 ± 1.9 mm for porcine valves (P = .08). Hospital mortality (6.3% vs 2.4%; P = .05), kidney failure (11.6% vs 9.8%; P = .73), and new pacemaker implantation rates (6.3% vs 3.0%; P = .21) were higher in the Perimount group reflecting the fact that more urgent, combined, and critical procedures were implanted with a Perimount Magna. Overall, 51 patients died over 60 months (34 Perimount, 17 Hancock), corresponding to a mortality of 5.3 per 100-persons year (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.8-7.4) and 3.0 (95% CI: 1.8-4.8), respectively. Survival at 5 years was 76% (95% CI: 68-82) and 83% (95% CI: 74-89) in the Perimount and Hancock groups (log-rank test; P = .099). Conclusions We confirm a good clinical outcome of patients with AVR with modern pericardial or a porcine bioprosthesis. Despite better hemodynamic, the Perimount does not improve the midterm clinical outcome compared with the porcine valve.