Literature DB >> 12807838

Twenty year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses.

H Oxenham1, P Bloomfield, D J Wheatley, R J Lee, J Cunningham, R J Prescott, H C Miller.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare survival and outcome in patients receiving a mechanical or bioprosthetic heart valve prosthesis.
DESIGN: Randomised prospective trial.
SETTING: Tertiary cardiac centre. PATIENTS: Between 1975 and 1979, patients were randomised to receive either a Bjork-Shiley or a porcine prostheses. The mitral valve was replaced in 261 patients, the aortic in 211, and both valves in 61 patients. Follow up now averages 20 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Death, reoperation, bleeding, embolism, and endocarditis.
RESULTS: After 20 years there was no difference in survival (Bjork-Shiley v porcine prosthesis (mean (SEM)): 25.0 (2.7)% v 22.6 (2.7)%, log rank test p = 0.39). Reoperation for valve failure was undertaken in 91 patients with porcine prostheses and in 22 with Bjork-Shiley prostheses. An analysis combining death and reoperation as end points confirmed that Bjork-Shiley patients had improved survival with the original prosthesis intact (23.5 (2.6)% v 6.7 (1.6)%, log rank test p < 0.0001); this difference became apparent after 8-10 years in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement, and after 12-14 years in those undergoing aortic valve replacement. Major bleeding was more common in Bjork-Shiley patients (40.7 (5.4)% v 27.9 (8.4)% after 20 years, p = 0.008), but there was no significant difference in major embolism or endocarditis.
CONCLUSIONS: Survival with an intact valve is better among patients with the Bjork-Shiley spherical tilting disc prosthesis than with a porcine prosthesis but there is an attendant increased risk of bleeding.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12807838      PMCID: PMC1767737          DOI: 10.1136/heart.89.7.715

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart        ISSN: 1355-6037            Impact factor:   5.994


  18 in total

1.  Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial.

Authors:  K Hammermeister; G K Sethi; W G Henderson; F L Grover; C Oprian; S H Rahimtoola
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 24.094

2.  Long-term outcome after biologic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in 841 patients.

Authors:  D S Peterseim; Y Y Cen; S Cheruvu; K Landolfo; T M Bashore; J E Lowe; W G Wolfe; D D Glower
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 5.209

3.  Asynchronous primary valve failure in patients with porcine bioprosthetic aortic and mitral valves.

Authors:  D J Magilligan; S R Kemp; P D Stein; E Peterson
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Therapeutic ranges in anticoagulant administration.

Authors:  L Poller
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1985-06-08

5.  Is the dose of warfarin prescribed by American physicians unnecessarily high?

Authors:  J Hirsh
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1987-04

6.  Comparison of outcome after valve replacement with a bioprosthesis versus a mechanical prosthesis: initial 5 year results of a randomized trial.

Authors:  K E Hammermeister; W G Henderson; C M Burchfiel; G K Sethi; J Souchek; C Oprian; A B Cantor; E Folland; S Khuri; S Rahimtoola
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 24.094

7.  Failure of Hancock xenograft valve: importance of valve position (4- to 9-year follow-up).

Authors:  H Bolooki; S Mallon; G A Kaiser; R J Thurer; J Kieval
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 4.330

8.  Intrinsic failure of Hancock mitral bioprostheses: 10- to 15-year experience.

Authors:  A H Foster; G J Greenberg; D J Underhill; C L McIntosh; R E Clark
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  1987-12       Impact factor: 4.330

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

Authors:  P Bloomfield; A H Kitchin; D J Wheatley; P R Walbaum; W Lutz; H C Miller
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 29.690

10.  The porcine bioprosthetic valve. Twelve years later.

Authors:  D J Magilligan; J W Lewis; B Tilley; E Peterson
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  1985-04       Impact factor: 5.209

View more
  46 in total

1.  The Edinburgh heart valve study.

Authors:  K M Taylor
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 5.994

2.  Reynolds shear stress for textile prosthetic heart valves in relation to fabric design.

Authors:  David L Bark; Atieh Yousefi; Marcio Forleo; Antoine Vaesken; Frederic Heim; Lakshmi P Dasi
Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater       Date:  2016-02-06

Review 3.  Prosthetic valve selection for middle-aged patients with aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Joanna Chikwe; Farzan Filsoufi; Alain F Carpentier
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 32.419

4.  Factors influencing mortality after bioprosthetic valve replacement; a midterm outcome.

Authors:  Hassan Javadzadegan; Amir Javadzadegan; Jafar Mehdizadeh Baghbani
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Thorac Res       Date:  2013-12-05

Review 5.  Pathogenesis of implant-associated infection: the role of the host.

Authors:  Werner Zimmerli; Parham Sendi
Journal:  Semin Immunopathol       Date:  2011-05-21       Impact factor: 9.623

6.  Implanted devices: biocompatibility, infection and tissue engineering.

Authors:  Werner Zimmerli
Journal:  Semin Immunopathol       Date:  2011-05-21       Impact factor: 9.623

7.  Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: a telltale from the young.

Authors:  Athanasios Antoniou; Amer Harky; John Yap; Kulvinder Lall; Mohamad Bashir
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-05

8.  Aortic valve replacement in young patients: should the biological prosthesis be recommended over the mechanical?

Authors:  Alberto Alperi; Daniel Hernandez-Vaquero; Isaac Pascual; Rocio Diaz; Iria Silva; Ruben Alvarez-Cabo; Pablo Avanzas; Cesar Moris
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-05

Review 9.  In Search of the Ideal Valve: Optimizing Genetic Modifications to Prevent Bioprosthetic Degeneration.

Authors:  Benjamin Smood; Hidetaka Hara; David C Cleveland; David K C Cooper
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2019-03-02       Impact factor: 4.330

Review 10.  Implantable Device-Related Infection.

Authors:  J Scott VanEpps; John G Younger
Journal:  Shock       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 3.454

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.