Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Critique
Current Issue
Editorial
Errata
Erratum
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Perspective
Perspectives
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Short Paper
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Viewpoint
White Paper
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Critique
Current Issue
Editorial
Errata
Erratum
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Perspective
Perspectives
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Short Paper
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Viewpoint
White Paper
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Editorial
135 (
2
); 150-151
pmid:
22446853

The future of bioprosthetic heart valves

Department of Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Cardiac Sciences Program, Winnipeg Regional Health Authority & St. Boniface Hospital, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Thomas E. Starzl Transplantation Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Department of Surgery, Transplantation & Advanced Technologies, Vascular Surgery & Organ Transplant Unit, University Hospital of Catania, Catania, Italy

*For correspondence: I.H. Asper Clinical Research Institute, St. Boniface Hospital, CR3014 - 369 Tache Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R2H 2A6 rmanji@sbgh.mb.ca

Licence

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

Two types of prosthetic valves are used for heart valve replacement surgery - mechanical or bioprosthetic. Mechanical valves have long-term durability, but require lifelong anticoagulation, with risks of thrombosis, thromboembolism, or spontaneous bleeding, and are therefore, less than ideal, particularly in young patients (injury-prone, menstruating, or pregnant) and in patients in the developing world, where close monitoring of anticoagulation may be difficult.

Bioprosthetic heart valves (BHVs) are constructed from porcine heart valves or bovine pericardium preserved with glutaraldehyde. Patients with BHVs do not require anticoagulation, but structural valve deterioration may occur, particularly in younger patients, necessitating replacement, with its associated higher risk of mortality.

The majority of the estimated 275,000 to 370,000 annual valve replacements are carried out in elderly patients in the developed world1. However, globally, there are an estimated 15 million patients with rheumatic heart disease, mostly young people in the developing world, with at least 280,000 new cases per year2. Only approximately 7-8 per cent of the Chinese and Indian populations have access to cardiac surgery13, but demand is likely to increase markedly as the economies of these nations grow and technology continues to develop, making valve replacement more feasible. For example, percutaneous transcatheter valve replacement (in which BHVs are used) is currently performed in elderly patients too ill for standard open heart surgery4, but should minimize the intensity of post-operative care required, potentially making it suitable for patients worldwide. Thus, there is a huge potential ‘market’ for BHV replacement.

Structural valve deterioration or failure occurring in BHVs is age-dependent, with <10 per cent occurring in patients >65 yr of age, but almost uniform failure within 5 years in patients <35 yr old5. BHV calcification is most likely a result of a combination of chemical processes related to glutaraldehyde-fixation and an immune response to the xenograft (both humoral and cellular)6. The likely reason that young patients demonstrate such aggressive destruction of a BHV is heightened immune competence and calcium metabolism.

The failed valves show evidence of inflammation (macrophage and mononuclear cell infiltration) and thrombosis (platelet and fibrin deposition)7, histopathological features similar to those seen in experimental live tissue/organ xenotransplants. Thus, advances in the field of experimental organ xenotransplantation may be applicable to designing more durable BHVs, especially for young patients.

In the porcine-to-human xenograft combination, the galactose α1, 3 galactose (Gal) antigen (present on most pig tissues) is the major target for anti-pig human antibodies8. This antigen-antibody reaction has been implicated by several groups in the calcification and failure of BHVs910. This problem may be at least partially resolved if BHVs are constructed from the genetically engineered pigs that have been developed as sources of organs for xenotransplantation.

α1, 3-galactosyltransferase gene-knockout (GTKO) pigs (that do not express Gal antigens) have been cross-bred with pigs that are transgenic for human complement-regulatory proteins, (e.g., CD46 CD55) and are known to provide resistance to human complement-mediated injury. GTKO pigs will soon be available expressing human ‘anti-inflammatory’ or ‘anti-thrombotic’ genes, both of which may provide further protection to a BHV from the human inflammatory and immune responses.

If BHVs could be fashioned to provide prolonged survival in young patients and in patients in whom long-term anticoagulation is contraindicated, there would likely be a paradigm shift to valve replacement worldwide. The raw materials required to fashion BHVs (e.g., valves or pericardial tissue from wild-type, unmodified pigs or cows) can be obtained at minimal cost from slaughterhouses. The costs of valves from genetically-modified pigs would undoubtedly be significantly greater (though would decrease significantly as breeding herds expand). Given the population of patients who might benefit most from improved BHVs, i.e., young people particularly in developing countries where the incidence of rheumatic heart disease remains high, the cost of the BHV is a major consideration. Perhaps because of this, to date, companies involved in this field have shown no enthusiasm for investigating genetically-engineered pigs as future sources of valves or pericardium. An innovative approach from entrepreneurs in countries such as China and India, coupled with increasing access to genetically-engineered pig herds, should resolve this dilemma.

References

  1. , , , , . Prosthetic heart valves: catering for the few. Biomaterials. 2008;29:385-406.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , , . The global burden of group A streptococcal diseases. Lancet Infect Dis. 2005;5:685-94.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , . International cardiac surgery: a global perspective. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;14:298-320.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , , , , . Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1597-607.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , . Bioprosthetic heart valves: modes of failure. Histopathology. 2009;55:135-44.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. , , , , , , . Glutaraldehyde-fixed bioprosthetic heart valve conduits calcify and fail from xenograft rejection. Circulation. 2006;114:318-27.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , , , , . Leukocytes, platelets, and surface microstructure of spontaneously degenerated porcine bioprosthetic valves. J Card Surg. 1988;3:253-61.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , , , , . Identification of alpha-galactosyl and other carbohydrate epitopes that are bound by human anti-pig antibodies: relevance to discordant xenografting in man. Transpl Immunol. 1993;1:198-205.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , , , . Cardiac xenotransplantation technology provides materials for improved bioprosthetic heart valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;141:269-75.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. , . How important is the anti-Gal antibody response following the implantation of a porcine bioprosthesis? J Heart Valve Dis. 2009;18:671-2.
    [Google Scholar]

    Fulltext Views
    19

    PDF downloads
    4
    View/Download PDF
    Download Citations
    BibTeX
    RIS
    Show Sections
    Scroll to Top