The changing role of pericardial tissue in biological valve surgery: 22 years’ experience with the Sorin Mitroflow stented pericardial valve

  • Charles A. Yankah
  • M. Pasic
  • J. Stein
  • C. Detschades
  • Henryk Siniawski
  • Roland Hetzer


The bovine pericardial tissue valve, once prohibited for clinical use, has demonstrated the longest durability (22 years) [1, 15]. With the increase in life expectancy up to 83 years in men and 85 years in women, there is a trend towards the use of non-thrombogenic biological tissue which requires no long-term anticoagulation [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]. Because of the natural history of the aortic valve and root diseases, the majority of patients have small aortic roots which require implantation of small and hemodynamically effective valves without the need for an extended procedure of aortic root enlargement [1, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25]. On the other hand, there is a group of younger patients, especially women of child-bearing age or persons who are active in sports or because of professional reasons, who prefer biological valves and trade long-term anticoagulation for a second operation in their lifetime [1, 3, 13, 14, 15, 16].


Heart Valve Aortic Valve Replacement Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis Effective Orifice Area Valve Size 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Yankah CA, Pasic M, Musci M, Stein J, Detschades C, Siniawski H, Hetzer R (2008) Aortic valve replacement with the Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis: durability results up to 21 years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 136(3):688–696CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Myken PSU, Bech-Hansen O (2009) A 20-year experience of 1712 patients with the Biocor porcine bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 137(1):76–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jamieson WR, Burr LH, Miyagishima RT, Germann E, MacNab JS, Stanford E, Chan F, Janusz MT, Ling H (2005) Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular aortic porcine bioprosthesis: clinical performance over 20 years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 130(4):994–1000CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borger MA, Ivanov J, Armstrong S, Christie-Hrybinsky D, Feindel CM, David TE (2006) Twenty-year results of the Hancock II bioprosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis 15(1):49–56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khan SS, Trento A, DeRobertis M, Kass RM, Sandhu M, Czer LS, Blanche C, Raissi S, Fontana GP, Cheng W, Chaux A, Matloff JM (2001) Twenty-year comparison of tissue and mechanical valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 122(2):257–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Legarra JJ, Llorens R, Catalan M, Segura I, Trenor AM, de Buruaga JS, Rabago G, Sarralde A (1999) Eighteen-year follow up after Hancock II bioprosthesis insertion. J Heart Valve Dis 8(1):16–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eichinger WB, Hettich I, Ruzicka D, Holper K, Schricker C, Bleiziffer S, Lange R (2008) Twenty-year experience with the St.-Jude medical biocor prosthesis in the aortic position. Ann Thorac Surg 86(4):1204–1211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pomar JL, Jamieson WR, Pelletier LC, Gerein AN, Castella M, Brownlee RT (1995) Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis: clinical performance to ten years. Ann Thorac Surg 60(2 Suppl):S305–S310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yankah CA, Schubel J, Buz S, Siniawski H, Hetzer R (2005) Seventeen-year clinical results of 1,037 Mitroflow pericardial heart valve prostheses in the aortic position. J Heart Valve Dis 14(2):172–180PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moggio RA, Pooley RW, Sarabu MR, Christiana J, Ho AW, Reed GE (1994) Experience with the Mitroflow aortic bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 108(2): 215–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sjögren J, Gudbjartsson T, Thulin LI (2006) Long-term outcome of the MitroFlow pericardial bioprosthesis in the elderly after aortic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis 15(2):197–202PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aupart MR, Mirza A, Muerisse YA, Sirinelli AL, Neville PH, Marchand MA (2006) Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis for aortic calcified stenosis: 18-year experience with 1133 patients. J Heart Valve Dis 15(6):768–776PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smedira NG, Blackstone EH, Roselli EE, Laffey CC, Cosgrove DM (2006) Are allografts the biologic valve of choice for aortic valve replacement in nonelderly patients? Comparison of explantation for structural valve deterioration of allograft and pericardial prostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131(3):558–564CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hammermeister K, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Grover FL, Oprian C, Rahimtoola SH (2000) Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 36(4):1152–1158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yankah CA, Weng Y, Meyer R, Siniawski H, Hetzer R (2006) Twenty-two-year durability of Ionescu-Shiley pericardial aortic bioprosthesis implanted in a 49-year-old woman: a valuable insight into the performance of current pericardial bioprostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 132(2):427–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jamieson WR, David TE, Feindel CM, Miyagishima RT, Germann E (2002) Performance of the Carpentier-Edwards SAV and Hancock-II porcine bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis 11(3):424–430PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Passik CS, Ackermann DM, Pluth JR, Edwards WD (1987) Temporal changes in the causes of aortic stenosis: a surgical pathologic study of 646 cases. Mayo Clin Proc 62(2):119–123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wood P (1958) Aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol 1(5):553–571CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nicks R, Cartmill T, Bernstein L (1970) Hypoplasia of the aortic root. The problem of aortic valve replacement. Thorax 25(3):339–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Manouguian S, Seybold-Epting W (1979) Patch enlargement of the aortic valve ring by extending the aortic incision into the anterior mitral leaflet. New operative technique. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 78(3):402–412PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Banbury MK, Cosgrove DM 3rd, Thomas JD, Blackstone EH, Rajeswaran J, Okies JE, Frater RM (2002) Hemodynamic stability during 17 years of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 73(5):1460–1465CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cosgrove DM, Lytle BW, Williams GW (1985) Hemodynamic performance of the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve in the aortic position in vivo. Circulation 72(3 Pt 2):II146–II152PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Garcia-Bengochea J, Sierra J, Gonzalez-Juanatey JR, Rubio J, Vega M, Fernandez AL, Sanchez D (2006) Left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement with the new Mitroflow 12A pericardial bioprosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis 5(3):446–452Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    David TE, Puschmann R, Ivanov J, Bos J, Armstrong S, Feindel CM, Scully HE (1998) Aortic valve replacement with stentless and stented porcine valves: a case-match study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 116(2):236–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sintek CF, Fletcher AD, Khonsari S (1996) Small aortic root in the elderly: use of stentless bioprosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis 5(Suppl 3):S308–S313PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Westaby S, Jin XY, Katsumata T, Arifi A, Braidley P (1998) Valve replacement with a stentless bioprosthesis: versatility of the porcine aortic root. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 116(3):477–484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Butchart EG, Moreno de la Santa P, Rooney SJ, Lewis PA (1995) Arterial risk factors and ischemic cerebrovascular events after aortic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis 4(1):1–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nollert G, Miksch J, Kreuzer E, Reichart B (2003) Risk factors for atherosclerosis and the degeneration of pericardial valves after aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 126(4):965–968CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Frater RW, Furlong P, Cosgrove DM, Okies JE, Colburn LQ, Katz AS, Lowe NL, Ryba EA (1998) Long-term durability and patient functional status of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis in the aortic position. J Heart Valve Dis 7(1):48–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Minami K, Schereika S, Kortke H, Gleichmann U, Koerfer R (1993) Long term follow-up of Mitroflow pericardial valve prostheses in the small aortic annulus. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 34(3):189–193Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rao V, Jamieson WR, Ivanov J, Armstrong S, David TE (2000) Prosthesis-patient mismatch affects survival after aortic valve replacement. Circulation 102(19 Suppl 3):III5–III9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Edmunds LH, Jr., Clark RE, Cohn LH, Grunkemeier GL, Miller DC, Weisel RD (1996) Guidelines for reporting morbidity and mortality after cardiac valvular operations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 112(3):708–711CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Roselli EE, Smedira NG, Blackstone EH (2006) Failure modes of the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis in the aortic position. J Heart Valve Dis 15(3):421–428PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Scully H, Goldman B, Fulop J, Butany J, Tong C, Azuma J, Schwartz L (1988) Five-year follow-up of Hancock pericardial valves: management of premature failure. J Card Surg 3(3 Suppl):397–403PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Leandri J, Bertrand P, Mazzucotelli JP, Loisance D (1992) Mode of failure of the Mitroflow pericardial valve. J Heart Valve Dis 1(2):225–231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Magilligan DJ, Lewis JW, Stein P, Alan M (1989) The porcine bioprosthetic heart valve: Experience at 15 years. Ann Thorac Surg 48(3):324–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jamieson WR, Burr LH, Tyers GF, Miyagishima RT, Janusz MT, Ling H, Fradet GJ, MacNab J, Chan F, Henderson C (1995) Carpentier-Edwards supraannular porcine bioprosthesis: Clinical performance to twelve years. Ann Thorac Surg 60(2 Suppl): S235–S240PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Puvimanasinghe JP, Takkenberg JJ, Edwards MB, Eijkemans MJ, Steyerberg EW, Van Herwerden LA, Taylor KM, Grunkemeier GL, Habbema JD, Bogers AJ (2004) Comparison of outcomes after aortic valve replacement with a mechanical valve or a bioprosthesis using microsimulation. Heart 90(10):1172–1178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Blackstone EH, Kirklin JW (1985) Death and other time-related events after valve replacement. Circulation 72(4):753–767PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Thiene G, Bortolotti U, Valente M (1998) The Hancock II xenograft: a step forward in bioprosthetic valve longevity? J Heart Valve Dis 8(1):1–3Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Simionescu A, Simionescu D, Deac R (1996) Biochemical pathways of tissue degeneration in bioprosthetic cardiac valves. The role of matrix metalloproteinases. ASAIO J 42(5):M561–M567CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Körtke H, Körfer R (2001) International normalized ratio self-management after mechanical heart valve replacement: is an early start advantageous? Ann Thorac Surg 72(1):44–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles A. Yankah
    • 1
  • M. Pasic
  • J. Stein
  • C. Detschades
  • Henryk Siniawski
    • 1
  • Roland Hetzer
    • 2
  1. 1.Deutsches Herzzentrum Berlin & Charité Medical University BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Deutsches Herzzentrum BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations