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: Hemodynamic and clinical comparison of the Hancock modified orifice and standard orifice bioprostheses in the aortic position.
    Author: Rossiter SJ, Miller DC, Stinson EB, Oyer PE, Reitz BA, Moreno-Cabral RJ, Mace JG, Robert EW, Tsagaris TJ, Sutton RB, Alderman EL, Shumway NE.
    Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1980 Jul; 80(1):54-60. PubMed ID: 7382536.
    Abstract:
    Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in patients with a small aortic root has been associated with postoperative transvalvular gradients. A modified orifice Hancock xenograft bioprosthesis has been developed and is purported to increase significantly the effective orifice area (as evaluated by in vitro testing) compared to the standard orifice Hancock bioprosthesis. To assess the in vivo differences, we compared 481 patients with standard orifice prostheses with 156 patients with modified orifice prostheses. Postoperative catheterization was performed in 24 patients with modified orifice (valve diameters 19 to 25 mm) with 14 with standard orifice valves (valve diameters 21 to 25 mm). Actuarial rates of survival, valve failure, endocarditis, and thromboembolism did not differ significantly between the two subgroups. Peak aortic valve gradients on the whole were less in the modified orifice subgroup than in the standard origice subgroup (12 +/- 1 torr versus 20 +/- 6 torr [mean +/- SEM]), but the difference was not statistically significant (p greather than 0.05). The calculated in vivo aortic valve areas were slightly, but insignificantly, greater in the modified orifice subgroup than in the standard orifice subgroup (p greater than 0.05). These in vivo data partially corroborate the in vitro findings of increased effective orifice area and internal-to-external diameter ratio for the modified orifice bioprosthesis. The hemodynamic differences between the two valve types are small, however, and the putative clinical advantages inherent in the use of the modified orifice bioprosthesis remain to be completely defined.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]