Durability of Tissue Valves

Seminars in Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 18-23

  Chikwe, Joanna ^a   Filsoufi, Farzan ^a  

^a MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DACRON;

AORTA VALVE PROSTHESIS; AORTA VALVE REPLACEMENT; ARTICLE; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EVENT FREE SURVIVAL; HEART VALVE BIOPROSTHESIS; HUMAN; LIFE EXPECTANCY; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; REOPERATION; STENT; SURGICAL PATIENT; SURGICAL RISK; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ANIMALS; BIOPROSTHESIS; HEART VALVE DISEASES; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; HUMANS; PATIENT SELECTION; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; REOPERATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 79960903199     PISSN: 10430679     EISSN: 15329488     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/j.semtcvs.2011.04.008     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Brown J.M., O'Brien S.M., Wu C., et al. Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: Changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009, 137:82-90.
2. Bonow R.O., Carabello B.A., Kanu C., et al. ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing committee to revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with valvular Heart Disease): Developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists: Endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation 2006, 114:e84-e231.
3. Vahanian A., Baumgartner H., Bax J., et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease: The Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2007, 28:230-268.
4. Carpentier A. Lasker Clinical Research Award. The surprising rise of nonthrombogenic valvular surgery. Nat Med 2007, 13:1165-1168.
5. Carpentier A., Deloche A., Relland J., et al. Six-year follow-up of glutaraldehyde-preserved heterografts. With particular reference to the treatment of congenital valve malformations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1974, 68:771-782.
6. Hilbert SL, Barrick MK, Ferrans VJ: Porcine aortic valve bioprostheses: A morphologic comparison of the effects of fixation pressure. J Biomed Mater Res 24:773-787.
7. Jamieson W.R., Burr L.H., Munro A.I., et al. Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine bioprosthesis: A 21-year experience. Ann Thorac Surg 1998, 66:S40-SS43.
8. Burdon T.A., Miller D.C., Oyer P.E., et al. Durability of porcine valves at fifteen years in a representative North American patient population. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1992, 103:238-251. discussion: 51-52.
9. Fann J.I., Miller D.C., Moore K.A., et al. Twenty-year clinical experience with porcine bioprostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 1996, 62:1301-1311. discussion: 11-12.
10. Jamieson W.R., Rosado L.J., Munro A.I., et al. Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine bioprosthesis: Primary tissue failure (structural valve deterioration) by age groups. Ann Thorac Surg 1988, 46:155-162.
11. Eric Jamieson W.R., Marchand M.A., Pelletier C.L., et al. Structural valve deterioration in mitral replacement surgery: Comparison of Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular porcine and perimount pericardial bioprostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999, 118:297-304.
12. Chikwe J., Filsoufi F., Carpentier A. Prosthetic Heart Valves. Hurst's the Heart 2011, 1757-1773. McGraw-Hill Medical, New York. V. in Fuster, R.A. Walsh, R.A. O'Rourke (Eds.).
13. David T.E., Armstrong S., Maganti M. Hancock II bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: The gold standard of bioprosthetic valves durability?. Ann Thorac Surg 2010, 90:775-781.
14. Chan V., Kulik A., Tran A., et al. Long-term clinical and hemodynamic performance of the Hancock II versus the perimount aortic bioprostheses. Circulation 2010, 122:S10-S16.
15. McClure R.S., Narayanasamy N., Wiegerinck E., et al. Late outcomes for aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: Up to 17-year follow-up in 1,000 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2010, 89:1410-1416.
16. Rieß F.C., Bader R., Cramer E., et al. The Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis: Role of age on clinical performance in aortic position. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011, 141:1440-1448.
17. Riess F.C., Cramer E., Hansen L., et al. Clinical results of the Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis up to 13 years. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2010, 37:145-153.
18. Jamieson W.R., Koerfer R., Yankah C.A., et al. Mitroflow aortic pericardial bioprosthesis-Clinical performance. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2009, 36:818-824.
19. Dalmau M.J., González-Santos J.M., Blázquez J.A., et al. Hemodynamic performance of the Medtronic Mosaic and perimount Magna aortic bioprostheses: Five-year results of a prospectively randomized study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2011, 39:844-852.
20. Grunkemeier G.L., Li H.H., Naftel D.C., et al. Long-term performance of heart valve prostheses. Curr Probl Cardiol 2000, 25:73-154.
21. Grunkemeier G.L., Jamieson W.R., Miller D.C., et al. Actuarial versus actual risk of porcine structural valve deterioration. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1994, 108:709-718.
22. Akins C.W., Miller D.C., Turina M.I., et al. Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008, 135:732-738.
23. Edmunds L.H., Clark R.E., Cohn L.H., et al. 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 1996, 112:708-711.
24. Hammermeister K., Sethi G.K., Henderson W.G., et al. 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 2000, 36:1152-1158.
25. Oxenham H., Bloomfield P., Wheatley D.J., et al. Twenty year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. Heart 2003, 89:715-721.
26. Chan V., Jamieson W.R., Germann E., et al. Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses assessed by composites of valve-related complications to 15 years after aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006, 131:1267-1273.
27. van Geldorp M.W., Eric Jamieson W.R., Kappetein A.P., et al. Patient outcome after aortic valve replacement with a mechanical or biological prosthesis: Weighing lifetime anticoagulant-related event risk against reoperation risk. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009, 137:881-886. 886e1-e5.
28. Stassano P., Di Tommaso L., Monaco M., et al. Aortic valve replacement: A prospective randomized evaluation of mechanical versus biological valves in patients ages 55 to 70 years. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009, 54:1862-1868.
29. Birkmeyer N.J., Birkmeyer J.D., Tosteson A.N., et al. Prosthetic valve type for patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: A decision analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 2000, 70:1946-1952.
30. Chikwe J., Filsoufi F., Carpentier A. Prosthetic valve selection for middle-aged patients with aortic stenosis. Nat Rev Cardiol 2010, 7:711-719.
31. Jamieson W.R., Gudas V.M., Burr L.H., et al. Mitral valve disease: If the mitral valve is not reparable/failed repair, is bioprosthesis suitable for replacement?. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2009, 35:104-110.
32. Filsoufi F., Chikwe J., Castillo J.G., et al. Prosthesis type has minimal impact on survival after valve surgery in patients with moderate to end-stage renal failure. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008, 23:3613-3621.
33. The Italian study on the Mitroflow postoperative results (isthmus): A 20-year, multicentre evaluation of Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2011, 39:18-26. ISTHMUS Investigators, discussion 26.