Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 23, 2026
An Ex Vivo Porcine Model for Hydrodynamic Testing of Experimental Aortic Valve Procedures and Novel Medical Devices
Published on: August 25, 2023
Durability of pericardial versus porcine aortic valves
Guangqiang Gao1, YingXing Wu, Gary L Grunkemeier
1Providence Health System, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Objectives:
This study compares the long-term performance of the Carpentier-Edwards (CE) porcine bioprosthesis and the CE pericardial bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR).
Background:
With new bioprostheses on the horizon, there is renewed interest in how the long-term durability of current pericardial bioprostheses compares with the traditional porcine bioprosthesis.
Methods:
We reviewed 518 AVR with CE porcine valves from 1974 to 1996 and 1,021 AVR with CE pericardial valves from 1991 to 2002. The age distribution and clinical profiles were similar for both groups. The total (mean) follow-up was 3,322 (6.4) years for porcine and 2,556 (2.5) years for pericardial.
Results:
Long-term mortality was similar (p = 0.29) for porcine and pericardial, with 10-year survival rates of 34 +/- 2% and 38 +/- 6%, respectively. Ten-year freedom from major adverse cardiac events was also similar for both (respectively): thromboembolism (80 +/- 2% and 87 +/- 2%; p = 0.24); endocarditis (98 +/- 1% and 99 +/- 1%; p = 0.30). However, 10-year freedom from explant was lower for porcine (90 +/- 2%) than for pericardial (97 +/- 1%, p = 0.04). Reasons for explant for porcine were structural valve deterioration (SVD) (n = 25), endocarditis (n = 4), and periprosthetic leak (n = 2). The reasons for explant for pericardial were SVD (n = 4), endocarditis (n = 4) and periprosthetic leak (n = 1).
Conclusions:
The current CE pericardial valve offers better midterm durability than the traditional CE porcine valve. Its freedom from SVD and reoperation makes it our current bioprosthesis of choice for AVR in appropriately selected patients.
