Literature DB >> 11479498

Twenty-year comparison of tissue and mechanical valve replacement.

S S Khan1, A Trento, M DeRobertis, R M Kass, M Sandhu, L S Czer, C Blanche, S Raissi, G P Fontana, W Cheng, A Chaux, J M Matloff.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare outcomes with tissue and St Jude Medical mechanical valves over a 20-year period.
METHODS: Valve-related events and overall survival were analyzed in 2533 patients 18 years of age or older undergoing initial aortic, mitral, or combined aortic and mitral (double) valve replacement with a tissue valve (Hancock, Carpentier-Edwards porcine, or Carpentier-Edwards pericardial) or a St Jude Medical mechanical valve. Total follow-up was 13,390 patient-years. There were 666 St Jude Medical aortic valve replacements, 723 tissue aortic valve replacements, 513 St Jude Medical mitral valve replacements, 402 tissue mitral valve replacements, 161 St Jude Medical double valve replacements, and 68 tissue double valve replacements. The mean age was 68 +/- 13.3 years (St Jude Medical valve, 64.5 +/- 12.9; tissue valve, 72.0 +/- 12.6).
RESULTS: There were no overall differences in survival between tissue and mechanical valves. Multivariable analysis indicated that the type of valve did not affect survival. Analysis by age less than 65 years or 65 years or older and presence or absence of coronary disease revealed similar long-term survival in all subgroups. The risk of hemorrhage was lower in patients receiving tissue aortic valve replacements but was not significantly different in patients receiving mitral valve or double valve replacements. Thromboembolism rates were similar for tissue and mechanical valve recipients. However, reoperation rates were significantly higher in patients receiving both aortic and mitral tissue valves. The reoperation hazard increased progressively with time both in patients receiving aortic and in those receiving mitral tissue valves. Overall valve complications were initially higher with mechanical aortic valves but not with mechanical mitral valves. However, valve complication rates later crossed over, with higher rates in tissue valve recipients after 7 years in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement and 10 years in those undergoing aortic valve replacement.
CONCLUSIONS: Tissue and mechanical valve recipients have similar survival over 20 years of follow-up. The primary tradeoff is an increased risk of hemorrhage in patients receiving mechanical aortic valve replacements and an increased risk of late reoperation in all patients receiving tissue valve replacements. The risk of tissue valve reoperation increases progressively with time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11479498     DOI: 10.1067/mtc.2001.115238

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 0022-5223            Impact factor:   5.209


  33 in total

1.  Survival and quality of life of octogenarians who underwent mechanical valve replacement at a younger age.

Authors:  Wataru Hashimoto; Kazuyoshi Tanigawa; Koji Hashizume; Tsuneo Ariyoshi; Shinichiro Taniguchi; Kenta Izumi; Takashi Miura; Syun Nakaji; Daisuke Onohara; Kiyoyuki Eishi
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2012-03-28

2.  Transcatheter Edwards Sapien XT valve in valve implantation in degenerated aortic bioprostheses via transfemoral access.

Authors:  Martin Greif; Philipp Lange; Helmut Mair; Christoph Becker; Christoph Schmitz; Gerhard Steinbeck; Christian Kupatt
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2012-06-23       Impact factor: 5.460

3.  Carpentier-Edwards pericardial aortic valve in middle-aged patients: comparison with the St. Jude Medical valve.

Authors:  Yoshimasa Sakamoto; Kazuhiro Hashimoto; Hiroshi Okuyama; Shinichi Ishii; Takahiro Inoue; Katsushi Kinouchi; Takayuki Abe
Journal:  Jpn J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2005-09

4.  Analysis of mitral valve replacement outcomes is enhanced by meaningful clinical use of electronic health records.

Authors:  John C Chen; Thomas Pfeffer; Shelley Johnstone; Yuexin Chen; Mary-Lou Kiley; Richard Richter; Hon Lee
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2013

5.  Perspective on the cost-effectiveness of transapical aortic valve implantation in high-risk patients: Outcomes of a decision-analytic model.

Authors:  Hemal Gada; Shikhar Agarwal; Thomas H Marwick
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2012-07

6.  Anticoagulant independent mechanical heart valves: viable now or still a distant holy grail.

Authors:  Aurelio Chaux; Richard J Gray; Jonathan C Stupka; Michael R Emken; Lawrence N Scotten; Rolland Siegel
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2016-12

Review 7.  Biological solutions to aortic root replacement: valve-sparing versus bioprosthetic conduit.

Authors:  Ruggero De Paulis; Raffaele Scaffa; Andrea Salica; Luca Weltert; Ilaria Chirichilli
Journal:  J Vis Surg       Date:  2018-05-09

8.  10-year results of On-X bileaflet mechanical heart valve in the aortic position: low target INR regimen in Japanese.

Authors:  Hideki Teshima; Masahiko Ikebuchi; Yosuke Miyamoto; Ryuta Tai; Toshikazu Sano; Yusuke Kinugasa; Hiroyuki Irie
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2017-04-19

9.  Aortic stenosis in high-risk patients. Surgical therapy.

Authors:  T Walther; M Arsalan; J Blumenstein; A van Linden; J Kempfert
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 1.443

Review 10.  The clinical anatomy and pathology of the human atrioventricular valves: implications for repair or replacement.

Authors:  Michael G Bateman; Jason L Quill; Alexander J Hill; Paul A Iaizzo
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2013-01-22       Impact factor: 4.132

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.