Chest ACCP Member Benefits
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Czer, L.
Right arrow Articles by Gray, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Czer, L.
Right arrow Articles by Gray, R.

Chest, Vol 91, 503-514, Copyright © 1987 by American College of Chest Physicians


ARTICLES

Comparative clinical experience with porcine bioprosthetic and St. Jude valve replacement

LS Czer, JM Matloff, A Chaux, MA DeRobertis and RJ Gray

From 1976 to 1984, 656 patients underwent aortic, mitral, or double valve replacement with a Hancock or Carpentier-Edwards porcine bioprosthesis (POR; n = 293) or with a St. Jude bileaflet valve (SJ; n = 363). Recipients of the St. Jude valve were of more advanced NYHA class preoperatively, required smaller prosthetic sizes, and more often had associated coronary artery disease necessitating bypass grafting (p less than .05). Despite these differences, POR and SJ recipients demonstrated similar 30-day mortality (7.5 vs 10.2 percent), five-year freedom from embolism (92 +/- 2 percent vs 92 +/- 2 percent), freedom from all valve-related complications (79 +/- 3 percent vs 79 +/- 4 percent), and survival (72 +/- 3 percent vs 71 +/- 3 percent) (p = NS). Structural failures occurred exclusively in POR recipients (3.0-4.5 percent/pt-yr after four years), and endocarditis was more common (1.0 vs 0.5 percent/pt-yr); as a result, the reoperation rate was three times higher in POR than SJ recipients (1.4 vs 0.46 percent/pt-yr, p less than .05). Warfarin-related bleeding (2.5 percent/pt-yr) was the most common complication in SJ recipients, but occurred equally frequently in POR recipients requiring anticoagulation; seven (44 percent) of 16 valve-related late deaths were warfarin-related. In properly anticoagulated patients, the thromboembolic rate was low (2.0 percent and 1.1 percent/pt-yr, POR and SJ); this rate increased significantly in SJ recipients receiving antiplatelet drugs alone (4.2 percent/pt-yr; n = 16) or no anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy (26.4 percent/pt-yr; n = 18) (p less than .05), but increased only slightly in POR recipients (to 1.5 percent/pt-yr, n = 108, and 2.0 percent/pt-yr, n = 63, respectively). Postoperatively, NYHA class 1 was more often achieved in SJ than POR recipients (60 vs 39 percent, p less than .05), perhaps because of the better hemodynamic performance of the SJ valve. Thus, despite differences in patient selection and the nature of complications observed with each prosthetic type, porcine and St. Jude valves provide similar early and late survival, frequency of embolism, total complication rate, and freedom from valve-related morbidity and mortality after five years of follow-up. Limited durability, susceptibility to infection, and inferior hemodynamics remain drawbacks to use of the porcine bioprosthesis. The necessity for warfarin anticoagulation and the frequency of resultant bleeding complications are the major shortcomings of the St. Jude valve.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.Home page
M. Ruel, A. Kulik, F. D. Rubens, P. Bedard, R. G. Masters, A. L. Pipe, and T. G. Mesana
Late incidence and determinants of reoperation in patients with prosthetic heart valves
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., March 1, 2004; 25(3): 364 - 370.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.Home page
Y.-Y. Cen, D. D. Glower, K. Landolfo, J. E. Lowe, R. D. Davis, W. G. Wolfe, C. Pieper, and B. Peterson
Comparison of survival after mitral valve replacement with biologic and mechanical valves in 1139 patients
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2001; 122(3): 569 - 577.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
P. Kvidal, R. Bergstrom, L.-G. Horte, and E. Stahle
Observed and relative survival after aortic valve replacement
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., March 1, 2000; 35(3): 747 - 756.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.Home page
D. D. Glower, W. D. White, A. C. Hatton, L. R. Smith, W. G. Young, W. G. Wolfe, and J. E. Lowe
Determinants of reoperation after 960 valve replacements with Carpentier-Edwards prostheses
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., February 1, 1994; 107(2): 381 - 393.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
NEJMHome page
K. E. Hammermeister, G. K. Sethi, W. G. Henderson, C. Oprian, T. Kim, S. Rahimtoola, and The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study on Valvular
A Comparison of Outcomes in Men 11 Years after Heart-Valve Replacement with a Mechanical Valve or Bioprosthesis
N. Engl. J. Med., May 6, 1993; 328(18): 1289 - 1296.
[Abstract] [Full Text]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1987 by the American College of Chest Physicians.