Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,835Open textbooks209Open-access articles1,406Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology182Genetics and Genomics170Neuroscience185Cardiovascular Medicine180Immunology142Pharmacology173Molecular Biology161Infectious Diseases150Rare and Inherited Diseases181Clinical Research173Anatomy and Physiology613Drugs and Chemicals621Psychiatry and Psychology185Public Health and Nutrition178Diagnostics and Medical Technology125Respiratory Medicine113Digestive System and Liver91Metabolism and Endocrine Disease177Bones, Joints, Muscles and Skin213Kidney, Urology and Women's Health173Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat55
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Diagnostics and Medical Technology›Bioprosthesis

Continue where you left off ()

Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Bioprosthesis

Diagnostics and Medical Technology · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-11-04 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 4 min read

Prosthesis, usually heart valve, composed of biological material and whose durability depends upon the stability of the material after pretreatment, rather than regeneration by host cell ingrowth.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (788 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

Prosthesis, usually heart valve, composed of biological material and whose durability depends upon the stability of the material after pretreatment, rather than regeneration by host cell ingrowth. Durability is achieved 1, mechanically by the interposition of a cloth, usually polytetrafluoroethylene, between the host and the graft, and 2, chemically by stabilization of the tissue by intermolecular linking, usually with glutaraldehyde, after removal of antigenic components, or the use of reconstituted and restructured biopolymers.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Bioprostheses; Glutaraldehyde-Stabilized Grafts; Glutaraldehyde-Stabilized Graft; Glutaraldehyde Stabilized Grafts; Graft, Glutaraldehyde-Stabilized; Grafts, Glutaraldehyde-Stabilized; Porcine Xenograft Bioprosthesis; Bioprostheses, Porcine Xenograft.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Prostheses and Implants
See also
Transplants

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 13,691 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Bioprosthesis” (counts retrieved 2026-11-04). 2,074 of them (15.1%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 4,465 records.

Reviews account for 1,323 records (9.7%) and meta-analyses for 142. Randomized controlled trials number 179 (1.3%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 4,437 records; 2000-2009: 2,715 records; 2010-2019: 4,465 records; 2020 onward: 2,074 records4,437through 19992,7152000-20094,4652010-20192,0742020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 19994,437
2000-20092,715
2010-20194,465
2020 onward2,074
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 9.7 percent; Meta-analyses: 1.0 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 1.3 percentReviews9.7% (1,323)Meta-analyses1.0% (142)Randomized controlled trials1.3% (179)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 13,691 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews1,3239.7%
Meta-analyses1421.0%
Randomized controlled trials1791.3%

Method: PubMed query "Bioprosthesis"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-11-04.

Reading the evidence in diagnostics and medical technology

A test or device is judged by how well it detects a condition, how often it gives false alarms or misses cases, and whether using it improves outcomes for people. Accuracy depends on who is tested and how common the condition is, so a test that performs well in a specialist hospital can perform differently in the community. Check the reference standard, the population studied, the sensitivity and specificity and whether results were confirmed in a separate group.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
The role of antibody responses against glycans in bioprosthetic heart valve calcification and deterioration
Senage T, Paul A, Le Tourneau T, Fellah-Hebia I, Vadori M, Bashir S, et al.
2022Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
78cc by
PMID 35177855 · DOI · PMC8863575
Leaflet modification before transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients at risk for coronary obstruction: the ShortCut study
Dvir D, Tchétché D, Leon MB, Généreux P, Seguy B, Makkar R, et al.
2024Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
46cc by
PMID 38747561 · DOI · PMC11365606
Mechanical or biologic prostheses for mitral valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Yu J, Qiao E, Wang W
2022Meta-analysis
Design not recorded in structured metadata
21cc by
PMID 35665516 · DOI · PMC9286334
Construction and Bioengineering of Human Bioprosthetic Ovaries from Cryopreserved Ovarian Tissue
Cao M, Todorov P, Rahimi G, Salama M, Woodruff TK, Isachenko E, et al.
2025Review article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
8cc by
PMID 40565010 · DOI · PMC12193682

The role of antibody responses against glycans in bioprosthetic heart valve calcification and deterioration [1]

Research article Senage T, Paul A, Le Tourneau T, Fellah-Hebia I, Vadori M, Bashir S, et al. · · 2022 · cited 78 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Bioprosthetic heart valves (BHVs) are commonly used to replace severely diseased heart valves but their susceptibility to structural valve degeneration (SVD) limits their use in young patients.
Closing excerpt
These results indicate that BHVs manufactured using donor tissues deficient in αGal and Neu5Gc could be less prone to immune-mediated deterioration and have improved durability.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (213 words)

Bioprosthetic heart valves (BHVs) are commonly used to replace severely diseased heart valves but their susceptibility to structural valve degeneration (SVD) limits their use in young patients. We hypothesized that antibodies against immunogenic glycans present on BHVs, particularly antibodies against the xenoantigens galactose-α1,3-galactose (αGal) and N-glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc), could mediate their deterioration through calcification. We established a large longitudinal prospective international cohort of patients (n = 1668, 34 ± 43 months of follow-up (0.1-182); 4,998 blood samples) to investigate the hemodynamics and immune responses associated with BHVs up to 15 years after aortic valve replacement. Early signs of SVD appeared in <5% of BHV recipients within 2 years. The levels of both anti-αGal and anti-Neu5Gc IgGs significantly increased one month after BHV implantation. The levels of these IgGs declined thereafter but anti-αGal IgG levels declined significantly faster in control patients compared to BHV recipients. Neu5Gc, anti-Neu5Gc IgG and complement deposition were found in calcified BHVs at much higher levels than in calcified native aortic valves. Moreover, in mice, anti-Neu5Gc antibodies were unable to promote calcium deposition on subcutaneously implanted BHV tissue engineered to lack αGal and Neu5Gc antigens. These results indicate that BHVs manufactured using donor tissues deficient in αGal and Neu5Gc could be less prone to immune-mediated deterioration and have improved durability.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 35177855 · DOI · PMC8863575

Leaflet modification before transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients at risk for coronary obstruction: the ShortCut study [2]

Research article Dvir D, Tchétché D, Leon MB, Généreux P, Seguy B, Makkar R, et al. · · 2024 · cited 46 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Background and aimsThis trial sought to assess the safety and efficacy of ShortCut, the first dedicated leaflet modification device, prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients at risk for coronary artery obstruction.
Closing excerpt
0%, P ConclusionsModification of failed bioprosthetic aortic valve leaflets using ShortCut was safe, achieved successful leaflet splitting in all patients, and was associated with favourable clinical outcomes in patients at risk for coronary obstruction undergoing TAVI.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (179 words)

Background and aimsThis trial sought to assess the safety and efficacy of ShortCut, the first dedicated leaflet modification device, prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients at risk for coronary artery obstruction.MethodsThis pivotal prospective study enrolled patients with failed bioprosthetic aortic valves scheduled to undergo TAVI and were at risk for coronary artery obstruction. The primary safety endpoint was procedure-related mortality or stroke at discharge or 7 days, and the primary efficacy endpoint was per-patient leaflet splitting success. Independent angiographic, echocardiographic, and computed tomography core laboratories assessed all images. Safety events were adjudicated by a clinical events committee and data safety monitoring board.ResultsSixty eligible patients were treated (77.0 ± 9.6 years, 70% female, 96.7% failed surgical bioprosthetic valves, 63.3% single splitting and 36.7% dual splitting) at 22 clinical sites. Successful leaflet splitting was achieved in all [100%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 94%-100.0%, P ConclusionsModification of failed bioprosthetic aortic valve leaflets using ShortCut was safe, achieved successful leaflet splitting in all patients, and was associated with favourable clinical outcomes in patients at risk for coronary obstruction undergoing TAVI.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 38747561 · DOI · PMC11365606

Mechanical or biologic prostheses for mitral valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis [3]

Meta-analysis Yu J, Qiao E, Wang W · · 2022 · cited 21 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Either a mechanical or bioprosthetic valve is used in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement (MVR).
Closing excerpt
Patients who received a MVRm is associated with 16% lower risk of long-term mortality and 66% lower risk of mitral reoperation, but 20% greater risk of stroke or systemic embolism, 21% greater risk of major bleeding compared with MVRb in matched/adjusted studies group, which were consistent to patients younger than the age of 70 years who underwent MVR.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (285 words)

Either a mechanical or bioprosthetic valve is used in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement (MVR). However, the optimal mitral prosthesis remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was thus to compare outcomes between mechanical mitral valve replacement (MVRm) and bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement (MVRb) for MVR patients. We searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from January 1, 2000 to October 31, 2021 for studies that directly compared surgical outcomes of MVRm and MVRb. A total of 22 studies with 35 903 patients were included in the meta-analysis (n = 23 868 MVRm and n = 12 035 MVRb). The MVRm group displayed lower long-term all causes mortality (HR, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77-0.91; p < .0001; I² = 51%), and fewer mitral reoperation (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.23-0.50; p < .00001; I² = 74%) than MVRb group. However, the MVRm group was associated with a greater risk of major bleeding events (HR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.14-1.29; p < .00001; I² = 0%), stroke and systemic embolism (HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.10-1.32; p < .0001; I² = 0%) in matched or adjusted data. No significant difference was observed between MVRm and MVRb on operative mortality in matched/adjusted group (risk ratios: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.66-1.05; p = .12; I² = 0%). The results were consistent with patients aged under 70 years old. Patients who received a MVRm is associated with 16% lower risk of long-term mortality and 66% lower risk of mitral reoperation, but 20% greater risk of stroke or systemic embolism, 21% greater risk of major bleeding compared with MVRb in matched/adjusted studies group, which were consistent to patients younger than the age of 70 years who underwent MVR.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 35665516 · DOI · PMC9286334

Construction and Bioengineering of Human Bioprosthetic Ovaries from Cryopreserved Ovarian Tissue [4]

Review article Cao M, Todorov P, Rahimi G, Salama M, Woodruff TK, Isachenko E, et al. · · 2025 · cited 8 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Ovarian tissue cryopreservation is increasingly recognized as an effective fertility preservation option for cancer patients undergoing gonadotoxic therapies.
Closing excerpt
Here, we review the construction of bioprosthetic ovaries designed to mimic natural ovarian architecture, and further discuss the challenges in bioprosthetic ovary bioengineering along with potential strategies to address these issues.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (111 words)

Ovarian tissue cryopreservation is increasingly recognized as an effective fertility preservation option for cancer patients undergoing gonadotoxic therapies. After cancer treatment, transplantation of frozen-thawed ovarian tissue can restore both fertility and endocrine function. However, the threat of reintroducing malignant cells limits its application in patients with a high risk of ovarian metastasis. To eliminate potential cancer cells in grafts, a promising strategy involves isolating follicles from cryopreserved ovarian tissue and encapsulating them within biocompatible scaffolds to construct transplantable bioprosthetic ovaries. Here, we review the construction of bioprosthetic ovaries designed to mimic natural ovarian architecture, and further discuss the challenges in bioprosthetic ovary bioengineering along with potential strategies to address these issues.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 40565010 · DOI · PMC12193682

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article Recommendations for the imaging assessment of prosthetic heart valves: a report from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging endorsed by the Chinese Society of Echocardiography, the Inter-American Society of Echocardiography, and the Brazilian Department of Cardiovascular Imaging [5]
    Lancellotti P, Pibarot P, Chambers J, Edvardsen T, Delgado V, Dulgheru R, et al. · Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging · 2016 · cited 393 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Standardized Definition of Structural Valve Degeneration for Surgical and Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves [6]
    Dvir D, Bourguignon T, Otto CM, Hahn RT, Rosenhek R, Webb JG, et al. · Circulation · 2018 · cited 341 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Standardized definitions of structural deterioration and valve failure in assessing long-term durability of transcatheter and surgical aortic bioprosthetic valves: a consensus statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) endorsed by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) [7]
    Capodanno D, Petronio AS, Prendergast B, Eltchaninoff H, Vahanian A, Modine T, et al. · Eur Heart J · 2017 · cited 289 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Degeneration of Bioprosthetic Heart Valves: Update 2020 [8]
    Kostyunin AE, Yuzhalin AE, Rezvova MA, Ovcharenko EA, Glushkova TV, Kutikhin AG · J Am Heart Assoc · 2020 · cited 241 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Aortic Bioprosthetic Valve Durability: Incidence, Mechanisms, Predictors, and Management of Surgical and Transcatheter Valve Degeneration [9]
    Rodriguez-Gabella T, Voisine P, Puri R, Pibarot P, Rodés-Cabau J · J Am Coll Cardiol · 2017 · cited 233 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Decellularized allogeneic and xenogeneic tissue as a bioscaffold for regenerative medicine: factors that influence the host response [10]
    Badylak SF · Ann Biomed Eng · 2014 · cited 220 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Senage T, Paul A, Le Tourneau T, Fellah-Hebia I, Vadori M, Bashir S, et al.. The role of antibody responses against glycans in bioprosthetic heart valve calcification and deterioration. . 2022. PMID 35177855 · DOI · PMC8863575
  2. Dvir D, Tchétché D, Leon MB, Généreux P, Seguy B, Makkar R, et al.. Leaflet modification before transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients at risk for coronary obstruction: the ShortCut study. . 2024. PMID 38747561 · DOI · PMC11365606
  3. Yu J, Qiao E, Wang W. Mechanical or biologic prostheses for mitral valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. . 2022. PMID 35665516 · DOI · PMC9286334
  4. Cao M, Todorov P, Rahimi G, Salama M, Woodruff TK, Isachenko E, et al.. Construction and Bioengineering of Human Bioprosthetic Ovaries from Cryopreserved Ovarian Tissue. . 2025. PMID 40565010 · DOI · PMC12193682
  5. Lancellotti P, Pibarot P, Chambers J, Edvardsen T, Delgado V, Dulgheru R, et al.. Recommendations for the imaging assessment of prosthetic heart valves: a report from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging endorsed by the Chinese Society of Echocardiography, the Inter-American Society of Echocardiography, and the Brazilian Department of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016. PMID 27143783 · DOI
  6. Dvir D, Bourguignon T, Otto CM, Hahn RT, Rosenhek R, Webb JG, et al.. Standardized Definition of Structural Valve Degeneration for Surgical and Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves. Circulation. 2018. PMID 29358344 · DOI
  7. Capodanno D, Petronio AS, Prendergast B, Eltchaninoff H, Vahanian A, Modine T, et al.. Standardized definitions of structural deterioration and valve failure in assessing long-term durability of transcatheter and surgical aortic bioprosthetic valves: a consensus statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) endorsed by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. 2017. PMID 29020344 · DOI
  8. Kostyunin AE, Yuzhalin AE, Rezvova MA, Ovcharenko EA, Glushkova TV, Kutikhin AG. Degeneration of Bioprosthetic Heart Valves: Update 2020. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020. PMID 32954917 · DOI · PMC7792365
  9. Rodriguez-Gabella T, Voisine P, Puri R, Pibarot P, Rodés-Cabau J. Aortic Bioprosthetic Valve Durability: Incidence, Mechanisms, Predictors, and Management of Surgical and Transcatheter Valve Degeneration. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017. PMID 28818190 · DOI
  10. Badylak SF. Decellularized allogeneic and xenogeneic tissue as a bioscaffold for regenerative medicine: factors that influence the host response. Ann Biomed Eng. 2014. PMID 24402648 · DOI

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-11-04; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-11-04.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • TransplantsAnatomy and Physiology
  • Graft SurvivalImmunology
  • Transplantation ToleranceImmunology
  • Graft RejectionImmunology
  • Graft vs Host DiseaseImmunology
  • AortographyDiagnostics and Medical Technology

All 110 articles in Diagnostics and Medical Technology →

At a glance

13,691
PubMed records on this heading
15%
published since 2020
1,323
review articles
179
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-11-04; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • TransplantsAnatomy and Physiology
  • Graft SurvivalImmunology
  • Transplantation ToleranceImmunology
  • Graft RejectionImmunology
  • Graft vs Host DiseaseImmunology

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Rights and removal requests · Legal · Support