Bovine Pericardial versus Porcine Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves: A Nationwide Population-based Cohort Study in Korea

To compare the clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement using bovine pericardial and porcine bioprostheses, utilizing a nationwide administrative claims database.Adult patients (≥ 40 years old) who underwent bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, without other valve replacements, between 2003 and 2018 were identified from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database. The outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and valve-related events, including the incidence of reoperation, endocarditis, systemic thromboembolism, and major bleeding. Baseline adjustment was performed using propensity score matching. Time-related outcomes were evaluated using a competing risk analysis, with death as a competing risk.Among the 7,714 patients who underwent bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, 5,621 (72.9%) received bovine pericardial and 2,093 (27.1%) received porcine bioprostheses. After matching, 1,937 pairs were included in the final analysis. During follow up (median 4.49 years, interquartile range 2.83-8.20), the use of porcine bioprostheses was associated with a higher risk of aortic valve reoperation (adjusted HR, 1.87; 95% confidence intervals, 1.16-3.01); however, no significant differences were observed in cumulative incidences of all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, thromboembolism, or major bleeding. Subgroup analyses revealed that the utilization of bovine valves was associated with improved survival in patients with diabetes mellitus, whereas in patients undergoing dialysis, porcine valves exhibited better survival than bovine valves.In this large nationwide cohort study of patients undergoing bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, utilization of porcine prostheses was significantly associated with an increased risk of reoperation than that of bovine prostheses, supporting previous findings.