Comparison of durability of bioprostheses in tricuspid and mitral positions

Annals of Thoracic Surgery

Volumn 71, Issue 5 SUPPL., 2001, Pages

  Ohata, Toshihiro ^a,b   Kigawa, Ikutaro ^a   Tohda, Eiichi ^a   Wanibuchi, Yasuhiko ^a  

^a MITSUI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (Japan)

^b OSAKA POLICE HOSPITAL   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHILD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONFERENCE PAPER; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEART ARRHYTHMIA; HEART VALVE BIOPROSTHESIS; HUMAN; MALE; MITRAL VALVE PROSTHESIS; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REOPERATION; SURVIVAL TIME; THROMBOEMBOLISM; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TRICUSPID VALVE DISEASE;

ACTUARIAL ANALYSIS; ADULT; AGED; BIOPROSTHESIS; CAUSE OF DEATH; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEART VALVE DISEASES; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MITRAL VALVE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; REOPERATION; TRICUSPID VALVE;

EID: 0035011004     PISSN: 00034975     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0003-4975(01)02557-7     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (14)

1. Kirklin JW, Pacifico AD. Surgery for acquired valvular heart disease. N Engl J Med 1973;288:194-9.
2. Groves PH, Hall RJC. Late tricuspid regurgitation following mitral valve surgery. J Heart Valve Dis 1992;1:80-6.
3. Hammond GL, Geha AS, Kopf GS, Hashim SW. Biological versus mechanical valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1987;93: 182-98.
4. Aupart MR, Neville PH, Hammami S, Sirinelli AL, Meurisse YA, Marchand MA. Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valves in the mitral position. Ten-year follow-up. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997;113:492-8.
5. Marchand M, Aupart M, Norton R, et al. Twelve-years experience with Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial valve in the mitral position: a multicenter study. J Heart Valve Dis 1998;7:292-8.
6. Nakano K, Eishi K, Kosakai Y, et al. Ten-year experience with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial xenograft in the tricuspid position. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1996;111:605-12.
7. Cohen SR, Silver MA, McIntosh CL, Roberts WC. Comparison of late (62 to 140 months) degenerative changes in simultaneously implanted and explanted porcine (Hancock) bioprostheses in the tricuspid and mitral positions in six patients. Am J Cardiol 1984;53:1599-602.
8. Ohata T, Kigawa I, Yamashita Y, Wanibuchi Y. Surgical strategy for severe tricuspid valve regurgitation complicated with advanced mitral valve disease: long-term outcome of tricuspid supra-annular implantation in 88 cases. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000;120:280-3.
9. Sarris GE, Robbins RC, Miller DC, et al. Randomized, prospective assessment of bioprosthetic valve durability. Hancock versus Carpentier-Edwards valve. Circulation 1993; 88:55-64.
10. Guerra F, Bortolotti U, Thiene G, et al. Long-term performance of Hancock porcine bioprosthesis in the tricuspid position: a review of forty-five patients with fourteen-year follow up. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1990;99:838-45.
11. Leprince P, Nataf P, Bros V, et al. Position-related factors in mitral, and tricuspid bioprostheses degenerative changes. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 1997;38:223-6.
12. David TE, Armstrong S, Sun Z. The Hancock II bioprosthesis at 12 years. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66:S95-8.
13. Butany J, Yu W, Silver MD, David TE. Morphologic findings in explanted Hancock II Porcine bioprostheses. J Heart Valve Dis 1999;8:4-15.
14. Jamieson WRE, Burr LH, Munro AI, Miyagishima RT. Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine bioprosthesis: a 21-year experience. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66:S40-3.