ATS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Davila, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Lewis, J. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Davila, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Lewis, J. W., Jr

The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, Vol 26, 303-316, Copyright © 1978 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

ARTICLES

Is the Hancock porcine valve the best cardiac valve substitute today?

JC Davila, DJ Magilligan Jr and JW Lewis Jr

Valve replacement with the Hancock stabilized glutaraldehyde porcine aortic valve has been accomplished in 454 patients. Hospital mortality (influenced by a high proportion of patients in New York Heart Association Functional Class IV) was 17.6% (80/454). The first 221 patients discharged from hospital were followed for 36 to 75 months after valve replacement. There have been 26 late deaths among these patients; 88% (195/221) are alive. Of these 221 patients, 185 had single-valve replacement, (125 mitral and 60 aortic), and 36 underwent multiple-valve replacement. There have been 260 valves at risk up to 6 1/4 years, which is equivalent to 12,984.5 valve-months or 1,082 valve- years. Average follow-up is 4.16 years. There have been 13 valve failures in 10 patients. In 4 patients endocarditis was proved to be the cause of failure, and in 5 it was suspected; in 1 patient the failure the failure is unexplained. The pathological similarity between those in whom infection was documented and the other 5 is remarkable and raises the question of whether low-grade infections may be the cause of certain types of valve failure.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.Home page
D. M. Cosgrove, B. W. Lytle, P. C. Taylor, M. T. Camacho, R. W. Stewart, P. M. McCarthy, D. P. Miller, M. R. Piedmonte, and F. D. Loop
The Carpentier-Edwards pericardial aortic valve: Ten-year results
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 1995; 110(3): 651 - 662.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANN THORAC SURG ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG
J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG ICVTS ALL CTSNet JOURNALS
Copyright © 1978 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.