These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparative analysis of mechanical and bioprosthetic valves after aortic valve replacement.
    Author: Borkon AM, Soule LM, Baughman KL, Aoun H, Baumgartner WA, Gardner TJ, Watkins L, Gott VL, Reitz BA.
    Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1987 Jul; 94(1):20-33. PubMed ID: 3600005.
    Abstract:
    Comparative long-term performance characteristics of Björk-Shiley mechanical and bioprosthetic valves were analyzed for patients undergoing aortic valve replacement between 1976 and 1981. A total of 419 patients received either a standard Björk-Shiley (n = 266) or bioprosthetic (porcine, n = 126, or pericardial, n = 27) aortic valve. Cumulative patient follow-up was 1,705 patient-years; the average patient follow-up was 4.1 +/- 2.7 years. Survival data were obtained for all but 11 patients (97% complete follow-up) up to 9 years after operation. Survival at 5 years was 81% +/- 4% (+/- standard error) for Björk-Shiley and for bioprosthetic valve recipients. Valve failure in the Björk-Shiley group was predominantly due to valve-related mortality and did not result from structural failure. Patients with bioprosthetic valves experienced valve failure as a result of prosthetic valve endocarditis and intrinsic valve degeneration. Although patients with bioprostheses experienced a lower incidence of valve-related morbidity than Björk-Shiley valve recipients (p less than 0.03), no difference could be demonstrated in the incidence of valve-related mortality or valve failure at 5 years between bioprosthetic and Björk-Shiley valves. Mortality rate from valve failure was higher for Björk-Shiley (86%, 12/14) than bioprosthetic valves (36%, 5/14) (p less than 0.01).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]