HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

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

The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, Vol 43, 245-253, Copyright © 1987 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

ARTICLES

A tri-institutional comparison of tissue and mechanical values using a patient-oriented definition of "treatment failure"

A Cobanoglu, WR Jamieson, DC Miller, C McKinley, GL Grunkemeier, HS Floten, RT Miyagishima, GF Tyers, NE Shumway and A Starr

Selection of valve type for predominant usage is obscured by limiting the analysis to prosthesis-related rather than patient-oriented failure modes. In this report, "treatment failure" is defined as a valve- related death or permanent patient disability; successful reoperations are excluded, and emboli with permanent residua are included. Results with the Starr-Edwards Silastic ball valve (Oregon) and the Hancock (Stanford) and Carpentier-Edwards (Vancouver) porcine valves are compared using this new definition of treatment failure. Evaluated according to structural failure, the mechanical valve is superior to the tissue valve, and using the Stanford definition of valve failure, it becomes so between 5 and 10 years. Using treatment failure, tissue valves are superior at 5 years; at 10 years in the aortic position, the results are comparable; and in the mitral position at 8 to 10 years, tissue valves show a continued but small advantage.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. W. Akins, A. D. Hilgenberg, G. J. Vlahakes, T. E. MacGillivray, D. F. Torchiana, and J. C. Madsen Results of bioprosthetic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement performed with concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting Ann. Thorac. Surg., October 1, 2002; 74(4): 1098 - 1106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]

				C. W. Akins, M. J. Buckley, W. M. Daggett, A. D. Hilgenberg, G. J. Vlahakes, D. F. Torchiana, and J. C. Madsen Risk of Reoperative Valve Replacement for Failed Mitral and Aortic Bioprostheses Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 1998; 65(6): 1545 - 1551. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]