Prosthetic heart valves: A review

McClung, John A.; Stein, Jonathan H.; Ambrose, John A.; Herman, Michael V.; Reed, George E.

doi:10.1016/0033-0620(83)90008-7

Cited by 40 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 211 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Multiple factors have been shown to influence early and late survival after valve replacement." [1][2][3][4][5][6] Randomization in this study resulted in the random distribution among the treatment groups of 34 preoperative clinical variables. The three participating surgeons treated equal numbers of patients in the three prosthesis groups.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A prospective evaluation of the Björk-Shiley, Hancock, and Carpentier-Edwards heart valve prostheses.

Bloomfield¹,

Kitchin²,

Wheatley³

et al. 1986

Circulation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From 1975to 1979 patients undergoing valve replacement were entered into a randomized trial and received either a Bjdrk-Shiley (273 patients) or a porcine heterograft prosthesis (initially a Hancock valve [107 patients] and later a Carpentier-Edwards prosthesis [ 160 patients]). Two hundred and sixty-two patients required mitral valve replacement, 210 required aortic valve replacement, 60 required mitral and aortic valve replacement, and eight also required associated tricuspid valve replacement (six mitral valve replacement; two mitral plus aortic valve replacement). Analysis of 34 preoperative and operative variables showed the treatment groups to be well randomized. In-hospital mortality was not significantly different among patients receiving the three prostheses for aortic valve replacement (7.6% overall) and mitral plus aortic valve replacement (10% overall), but there was a higher in-hospital mortality for patients undergoing mitral valve replacement with the CarpentierEdwards prosthesis (15.5% compared with 8.8% overall; p = .03). This difference could not be explained on the basis of any preoperative or operative variable. Median follow-up was 5.6 (range 2.8 to 8.3) years. Actuarial survival after mitral valve replacement was 56.7 + 7.0% at 7 years, that after aortic valve replacement was 69.6 ± 9.6% at 7 years, and that after mitral plus aortic valve replacement was 62.5 ± 20.0% at 7 years. There was no significant difference in actuarial survival of patients receiving the three prostheses within the mitral, aortic, and mitral plus aortic valve replacement groups, nor was there a difference when these groups were amalgamated. Thirty-seven patients required reoperation for valve failure (15 with Bjbrk-Shiley, 12 with Hancock, and 10 with Carpentier-Edwards valves; p = NS) and 11 died at reoperation (four with Bjdrk-Shiley, four with Hancock, and three with Carpentier-Edwards valves; overall operative mortality 29.7%). Up to 7 years after surgery, there was no significant difference in the incidence of thromboembolism in patients with the different prostheses undergoing mitral or aortic valve replacement. There were too few patients undergoing mitral plus aortic valve replacement for meaningful comparison. There was no significant beneficial effect of anticoagulants in patients undergoing mitral or aortic valve replacement with porcine prostheses, but patients were not randomly allocated to anticoagulant treatment. All patients with Bjdrk-Shiley prostheses received anticoagulants. Multivariate analysis of factors associated with embolism identified atrial fibrillation with mitral valve replacement (p < .001) and age less than 65 years (p < .01) and a rheumatic cause of valvular disease (p < .01) with aortic valve replacement. The risks of anticoagulation were low, with an overall incidence of complications of approximately one per 100 years treatment. To date no significant advantage of any of the three prostheses has been observed, but further follow-up is necessary because important differenc...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A prospective evaluation of the Björk-Shiley, Hancock, and Carpentier-Edwards heart valve prostheses.

Bloomfield¹,

Kitchin²,

Wheatley³

et al. 1986

Circulation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thromboembolic complications in the mechanical prostheses, as well as ruptures, restenoses and calcifications in the bioprostheses, are the major causes of morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing valvar replacement. This shows that, despite the great technological evolution and constant studies, an ideal substitute for the natural valve, either mechanical or biological, providing longevity and low thrombogenicity, is yet to be found [1][2][3][4][5] . Because of that, conservative techniques have been progressively used in patients with valvopathies in a number of centers [2][3][4][5][6] .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This shows that, despite the great technological evolution and constant studies, an ideal substitute for the natural valve, either mechanical or biological, providing longevity and low thrombogenicity, is yet to be found [1][2][3][4][5] . Because of that, conservative techniques have been progressively used in patients with valvopathies in a number of centers [2][3][4][5][6] . Thus, the interest in the morphology of cardiac valves, which during the 60's and 70's was limited to the pathological features due to the large number of valvar replacements, was extended.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Aortic valve assessment. Anatomical study of 100 healthy human hearts

Jatene¹,

Monteiro²,

Guimarães³

et al. 1999

Arq. Bras. Cardiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Wellford and Wellford [5] had suggested aneurysm formation, among other things, as a complication of prosthetic valve endocarditis associated with high mortality. McClung et al [4] noted that the infection involving a bioprosthetic valve is usually localized to the fibrin deposits on the leaflets, whereas infection of mechanical valves usually occurs in the suture ring. In our case, however, there was no evidence of infection involving the prosthetic valve or the suture lines.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%