Comparing porcine versus bovine mitral valve replacement in terms of structural valve deterioration: a systematic review

比较猪二尖瓣置换术与牛二尖瓣置换术在结构性瓣膜退化方面的差异:一项系统性综述

阅读:1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bioprosthetic mitral valve replacements (MVR) commonly utilize either bovine or porcine valves; however, in terms of structural valve deterioration (SVD), clinical superiority between these valve types remains controversial. The primary objective of this study was to directly compare structural valve deterioration between porcine and bovine bioprosthetic valves used in mitral valve replacement. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Studies directly comparing porcine and bovine bioprosthetic valves in MVR were identified through comprehensive searches of Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases from inception through March 5, 2025. Eligible studies were cohort studies that directly compared bovine and porcine bioprosthetic valves implanted in the mitral position and reported SVD outcomes. The primary exposure was valve type, and the primary outcomes were reports of SVD. Data extraction included patient demographics, valve characteristics, SVD definitions, and modes of SVD. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for risk-of-bias assessment. Principal analyses involved narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Nine studies comprising 6,945 patients (range per study: 240-1,695) with follow-up periods ranging from 3.5 to 15 years were included. Three studies favored porcine valves, two favored bovine valves, and four showed no significant difference in terms of SVD. Porcine valves frequently demonstrated leaflet tearing resulting in acute regurgitation, while bovine valves predominantly exhibited calcification leading to stenosis. Younger patients (< 65 years) generally showed better results with porcine valves. Despite variability across studies, cumulative evidence suggested a trend toward superior long-term durability of porcine bioprostheses. CONCLUSIONS: Valve selection should be tailored to patient-specific factors, including age, anticipated longevity, clinical risk profile, and religious preference. Future studies should employ standardized definitions and longitudinal follow-up to clarify these findings.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。