Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses assessed by composites of valve-related complications to 15 years after mitral valve replacement

Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Volumn 129, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 1301-1308

  Jamieson, W R E ^a,b   Von Lipinski, O ^a   Miyagishima, R T ^a   Burr, L H ^a   Janusz, M T ^a   Ling, H ^a   Fradet, G J ^a   Chan, F ^a   Germann, E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b ST PAUL S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEART VALVE BIOPROSTHESIS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MITRAL VALVE REPLACEMENT; MORBIDITY; MORTALITY; PERFORMANCE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REOPERATION; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ADULT; AGED; BIOPROSTHESIS; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; FEMALE; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MITRAL VALVE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; REOPERATION; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 20444423667     PISSN: 00225223     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2004.09.042     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. K. Hammermeister, G.K. Sethi, W.G. Henderson, F.L. Grover, C. Oprian, S.H. Rahimtoola Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial J Am Coll Cardiol 36 2000 1152 1158
2. K.E. Hammermeister, G.K. Sethi, W.G. Henderson, C. Oprian, T. Kim, S.H. Rahimtoola A comparison of outcomes in men 11 years after heart-valve replacement with a mechanical valve or bioprosthesis. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study on Valvular Heart Disease N Engl J Med 328 1993 1289 1296
3. K.E. Hammermeister, W.G. Henderson, C.M. Burchfiel, G.K. Sethi, J. Souchek, C. Oprian Comparison of outcome after valve replacement with a bioprosthesis versus a mechanical prosthesis initial 5 year results of a randomized trial J Am Coll Cardiol 10 4 1987 719 732
4. P. Bloomfield, D.J. Wheatley, R.J. Prescott, H.C. Miller Twelve-year comparison of a Björk-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses N Engl J Med 28 1991 573 579 324
5. H. Oxenham, P. Bloomfield, D.J. Wheatley, R.J. Lee, J. Cunningham, R.J. Prescott Twenty-year comparison of the Björk-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses Heart 89 2003 715 721
6. W.R.E. Jamieson, R.T. Miyagishima, L.H. Burr, S.V. Lichtenstein, G.J. Fradet, M.T. Janusz Carpentier-Edwards porcine bioprostheses clinical performance assessed by actual analysis J Heart Valve Dis 9 2000 530 535
7. L.H. Edmunds Jr, R.E. Clark, L.H. Cohn, G.L. Grunkemeier, D.C. Miller, R.D. Weisel Guidelines for reporting morbidity and mortality after cardiac valvular operations. Ad Hoc Liaison Committee for Standardizing Definitions of Prosthetic Heart Valve Morbidity of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 112 1996 708 711
8. G.L. Grunkemeier, H.H. Li, D.C. Naftel, A. Starr, S.H. Rahimtoola Long-term performance of heart valve prostheses Curr Probl Cardiol 25 2000 73 154
9. G.L. Grunkemeier, A. Starr, S.H. Rahimtoola Clinical performance of prosthetic heart valves R. Schlant R.W. Alexander Hurst's the heart 9th ed. 1998 McGraw-Hill New York 1851 1866
10. G.L. Grunkemeier, R.P. Anderson, D.C. Miller, A. Starr Time-related analysis of nonfatal heart valve complications cumulative incidence (actual) versus Kaplan-Meier (actuarial) Circulation 96 9 Suppl 1997 II70 II75
11. G.L. Grunkemeier, W.R. Jamieson, D.C. Miller, A. Starr Actuarial versus actual risk of porcine structural valve deterioration J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 108 1994 709 718
12. P.S. Myken, K. Caidahl, P. Larsson, S. Larsson, I. Wallentin, H.E. Berggren Mechanical versus biological valve prosthesis a ten-year comparison regarding function and quality of life Ann Thorac Surg 60 2 Suppl 1995 S447 S452
13. Y. Kobayashi, K. Eishi, S. Nagata, K. Nakano, Y. Sasako, J. Kobayashi Choice of replacement valve in the elderly J Heart Valve Dis 6 1997 404 409
14. M. Demirag, K. Kirali, S.N. Omeroglu, D. Mansuroglu, E. Akinci, G. Ipek Mechanical versus biological valve prosthesis in the mitral position a 10-year follow up of St Jude Medical and Biocor valves J Heart Valve Dis 10 2001 78 83
15. P. Sidhu, H. O'Kane, N. Ali, D.J. Gladstone, M.A. Sarsam, G. Campalani Mechanical or bioprosthetic valves in the elderly a 20-year comparison Ann Thorac Surg 71 5 Suppl 2001 S257 S260
16. B. Kassai, F. Gueyffier, M. Cucherat, J.P. Boissel Comparison of bioprosthesis and mechanical valves, a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials Cardiovasc Surg 8 2000 477 483
17. Y. Kawachi, K. Tokunaga Clinical comparative study between mitral mechanical and bioprosthetic valves-what is the benefit of bioprosthetic valves in the mitral position? Jpn Circ J 54 1990 1525 1534
18. W.R.E. Jamieson, L.H. Burr, R.T. Miyagishima, E. Germann, W.N. Anderson Actuarial versus actual freedom from structural valve deterioration with the Carpentier-Edwards porcine bioprostheses Can J Cardiol 15 1999 973 978
19. W.R.E. Jamieson, G.F. Tyers, M.T. Janusz, R.T. Miyagishima, A.I. Munro, H. Ling Age as a determinant for selection of porcine bioprostheses for cardiac valve replacement experience with Carpentier-Edwards standard bioprosthesis Can J Cardiol 7 1991 181 188
20. W.R.E. Jamieson, L.H. Burr, R.T. Miyagishima, M.T. Janusz, G.J. Fradet, S.V. Lichtenstein Reoperation for bioprosthetic mitral structural failure risk assessment Circulation 108 10 Suppl 2003 II98 II102