PURPOSE: To elucidate the effects of prosthetic valve sound on a patient's quality of life (QOL). METHODS: We compared the valve sounds of ATS, SJM, and Carbomedics (CM) based on assessments by 248 patients who underwent mechanical valve replacements from January 2000 to August 2003 at seven facilities in Japan. We used a self-administered questionnaire for evaluating patients' assessments of valve sounds and the Japanese version of SF-36 for measuring their health-related QOL. RESULTS: With respect to the valve-sound level perceived immediately after surgery, we considered the ATS and SJM valves quieter than the CM valve, but others have considered the ATS valve quieter than the SJM and CM valves. Regarding the time when the valve sound stopped bothering patients, a significant difference was observed between the ATS and CM valves and between the SJM and CM valves. The logistic regression analysis on patients' perceptions of valve sounds indicated that the influences of age, gender, and valve position are significant. Furthermore, a survey with SF-36 indicated that a long valve sound will affect a patient's health-related QOL. CONCLUSION: The present study suggested that the ATS valve surpassed the other two valves on the whole in audibility of valve sound and patient health-related QOL. However, further studies, including the ongoing prospective study, are necessary for a more comprehensive and accurate evaluation of the ATS valve.
PURPOSE: To elucidate the effects of prosthetic valve sound on a patient's quality of life (QOL). METHODS: We compared the valve sounds of ATS, SJM, and Carbomedics (CM) based on assessments by 248 patients who underwent mechanical valve replacements from January 2000 to August 2003 at seven facilities in Japan. We used a self-administered questionnaire for evaluating patients' assessments of valve sounds and the Japanese version of SF-36 for measuring their health-related QOL. RESULTS: With respect to the valve-sound level perceived immediately after surgery, we considered the ATS and SJM valves quieter than the CM valve, but others have considered the ATS valve quieter than the SJM and CM valves. Regarding the time when the valve sound stopped bothering patients, a significant difference was observed between the ATS and CM valves and between the SJM and CM valves. The logistic regression analysis on patients' perceptions of valve sounds indicated that the influences of age, gender, and valve position are significant. Furthermore, a survey with SF-36 indicated that a long valve sound will affect a patient's health-related QOL. CONCLUSION: The present study suggested that the ATS valve surpassed the other two valves on the whole in audibility of valve sound and patient health-related QOL. However, further studies, including the ongoing prospective study, are necessary for a more comprehensive and accurate evaluation of the ATS valve.