Long-Term Clinical and Hemodynamic Performance of the Hancock II Versus the Perimount Aortic Bioprostheses

Chan, Vincent; Kulik, Alexander; Tran, Anthony; Hendry, Paul; Masters, Roy G.; Mesana, Thierry G.; Ruel, Marc

doi:10.1161/circulationaha.109.928085

Cited by 51 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The preoperative demographics of patients in this study cohort were similar to other studies describing outcomes following AVR or MVR. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] In the present study, younger patients who underwent bioprosthetic AVR were less likely to be female, have preoperative atrial fibrillation, and undergo concomitant CABG. Younger patients who underwent MVR were also less likely to require concomitant CABG.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

“…1 Large cohort studies have indicated that excellent survival and freedom from valve-related complications, including reoperation, are associated with the use of a bioprosthesis for left heart valve replacement in patients older than 65 years. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Younger patients also may opt for a bioprosthesis at the time of valve surgery to avoid long-term oral anticoagulation, which is associated with hemorrhage and worse disease perception. 9 Recent North American data indicate that bioprostheses are increasingly used in patients less than 65 years of age who undergo aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, it remains unclear as to exactly how long a bioprosthesis may last when it is implanted in a patient in his or her fifth or sixth decade of life. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][13][14][15] Accurate reoperation information would be important for patients who present for valve replacement surgery at a young age, as well as for the physicians who treat them.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reoperation of Left Heart Valve Bioprostheses According to Age at Implantation

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background-Evidence supporting the use of bioprostheses for heart valve replacement in young adults is accumulating.However, reoperation data, which may help guide clinical decision making in young patients, remains poorly defined in the literature. Methods and Results-We examined the need for reoperation in 3975 patients who underwent first-time bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) (nϭ3152) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) (nϭ823). There were 895 patients below the age of 60 years at bioprosthesis implant (AVR, nϭ636; MVR, nϭ259

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reoperation of Left Heart Valve Bioprostheses According to Age at Implantation

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Good long-term results of bioprosthesis implantation in older patients are well known [13–15]. Long-term results of implantation of currently available bioprostheses are comparable [16, 17]. Very good results of bioprosthesis implantation in patients who underwent surgery under the age of 60 years and were followed for over 20 years were presented by Ruel et al [18].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological artificial valve dysfunction – single-centre, observational echocardiographic study in patients operated on before age 65 years

Maciejewski

Piestrzeniewicz²,

Bielecka‐Dąbrowa³

et al. 2011

aoms

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionPatients with implanted bioprostheses are at risk of structural dysfunction which results from the limited durability of biological valves. The aim of this study was to analyse the mechanism of bioprosthesis degeneration and to evaluate the usability of transthoracic and transoesophageal echocardiography in determining the indications for reoperation in 117 patients with a bioprosthesis implanted before 65 years old.Material and methodsThe study comprised 117 consecutive patients (M – 27, F – 90, age 48-74 years, 57.5 ±9.5 years) with a bioprosthesis implanted under the age of 65, who were examined in accordance with the accepted protocol and whose complete clinical and echocardiographic documentation was collected. The scheduled echocardiographic examination was performed annually from the 5 year after implantation of the bioprosthesis in patients with a valve implanted over the age of 35 years and from the 1 year after bioprosthesis implantation in patients with a prosthesis implanted at a younger age. Unscheduled echocardiographic examinations were performed only on clinical indications.ResultsDuring the period under observation, due to degeneration of the bioprosthesis 76 patients were reoperated, including 62 patients with mitral bioprostheses. In 88.7% of patients with degeneration of mitral valve bioprostheses, regurgitation was observed. In 69% of patients with aortic bioprostheses, valve dysfunction was the dominant mechanism of stenosis.ConclusionsThe most common mechanism of structural dysfunction of a mitral bioprosthesis is regurgitation caused by prolapse or perforation of one of the leaflets. Degeneration of an aortic bioprosthesis usually results in aortic stenosis. In cases of bioprosthesis degeneration connected with stenosis, transthoracic echocardiography was sufficient for the evaluation of valve dysfunction. In the case of bioprosthesis dysfunction accompanied by regurgitation, transoesophageal echocardiography was more informative to decide when the operation should be performed.

show abstract

“…23,48,72,74 The second generation of heart valves treated by zero to low pressure fixation (e.g., the Hancock II porcine valve, Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, MN, and the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount TM , Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA), have been implanted in patients for more than two decades with minimal problem. 27,36,109 Alternatively, third generation of heart valves such as Carpentier-Edwards Magna model of the Perimount TM pericardial prosthesis (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) and the Mosaic porcine valve (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN) have only been implanted for approximately 13 years. 34,73,133,134 , making it too early to determine their durability compared to older generations.…”

Section: Accelerated Wear Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emerging Trends in Heart Valve Engineering: Part IV. Computational Modeling and Experimental Studies

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-In this final portion of an extensive review of heart valve engineering, we focus on the computational methods and experimental studies related to heart valves. The discussion begins with a thorough review of computational modeling and the governing equations of fluid and structural interaction. We then move onto multiscale and disease specific modeling. Finally, advanced methods related to in vitro testing of the heart valves are reviewed. This section of the review series is intended to illustrate application of computational methods and experimental studies and their interrelation for studying heart valves.

show abstract

Long-Term Clinical and Hemodynamic Performance of the Hancock II Versus the Perimount Aortic Bioprostheses

Abstract: Background-The

Cited by 51 publications

References 24 publications

Reoperation of Left Heart Valve Bioprostheses According to Age at Implantation

Reoperation of Left Heart Valve Bioprostheses According to Age at Implantation

Biological artificial valve dysfunction – single-centre, observational echocardiographic study in patients operated on before age 65 years

Emerging Trends in Heart Valve Engineering: Part IV. Computational Modeling and Experimental Studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About