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 study of type of prosthesis on late results after double valve replacement].
    Author: Morishita K, Abe T, Kazui T, Kamata K, Nakanishi K, Komatsu S.
    Journal: Kyobu Geka; 1994 Nov; 47(12):961-4. PubMed ID: 7990286.
    Abstract:
    This study was performed to clear the influence of combination of prostheses on late results by comparing our patients. The patients were divided into two groups. Group I patients received a mechanical valve in the aortic position and a bioprosthesis in the mitral position (n = 25): and group II, dual mechanical valves (n = 89). The duration of follow-up ranged from 0.2 to 13.5 years, with a total of 466 patient-years. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of actuarial survival or incidence of reoperations, thromboemboli, or nonstructural dysfunction. Group I, however, had a significantly greater incidence of structural valve deterioration, anticoagulant-related hemorrhage, and all valve-related morbidity and mortality when compared with group II. In conclusion, 1. combining a mechanical valve and a bioprosthesis is disadvantageous: 2. dual mechanical valves have excellent long-term results.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]