INTRODUCTION
Aortic valve replacement (AVR) continues to be the mainstay of therapy
for severe valvular disease, and surgeons remain faced with a wide array
of prosthetic valve options. Broadly, prosthetic valve types can be
subdivided into mechanical or bioprosthetic, with bioprosthetic valves
being further subdivided into stented and stentless valves. With the
advantages of avoiding anticoagulation and the option of future
valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR),
bioprosthetic valve use has been increasingly favored over mechanical
valve use in the elderly and middle-aged
populations.1,2 While there are guidelines regarding
the use of bioprosthetic versus mechanical aortic valves in certain
patient populations, there is no consensus on the use of bovine
pericardial versus porcine bioprosthetic valves.3 As
such, the choice of bioprosthetic valve type continues to be left to
surgeon preference. Recent studies suggest that bovine valves are used
more commonly than porcine valves, comprising roughly two thirds of all
bioprosthetic AVRs.4,5,6
Prior studies comparing bovine and porcine valves in the aortic position
have had conflicting results, with some studies demonstrating
differences in survival and reintervention rates, and other studies
showing no differences between the two valve types. Due to the lack of
consensus and inconsistent findings in the available literature, we
performed a propensity-matched study of patients at our center who
underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with either a bovine or a
porcine valve. This study sought to evaluate the specific impact of
valve type on both short-term and long-term outcomes.