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


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
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 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 Author home page(s):
Uberto Bortolotti
Aldo Milano
Gaetano Thiene
Francisco Guerra
Alessandro Mazzucco
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 Bortolotti, U.
Right arrow Articles by Gallucci, V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bortolotti, U.
Right arrow Articles by Gallucci, V.

Ann Thorac Surg 1987;44:139-144
© 1987 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons


Articles

Long-term Durability of the Hancock Porcine Bioprosthesis Following Combined Mitral and Aortic Valve Replacement: An 11-Year Experience

Uberto Bortolotti, M.D.*, Aldo Milano, M.D., Gaetano Thiene, M.D., Francisco Guerra, M.D., Alessandro Mazzucco, M.D., Enrico Talenti, M.D., Vincenzo Gallucci, M.D.

Departments of Cardiovascular Surgery, Pathology, and Radiology, University of Padua Medical School, Padua, Italy

Accepted for publication December 17, 1986.

* Address reprint requests to Dr. Bortolotti, Istituto di Chirurgia Cardiovascolare, Via Giustiniani, 2, 35128 Padova, Italy

Long-term evaluation of patients undergoing combined mitral and aortic valve replacement (MVR + AVR) with a porcine bioprosthesis provides the opportunity for a direct comparison of the durability of the mitral versus the aortic porcine bioprosthesis in the same patient. From 1970 to 1983, 71 patients underwent MVR + AVR with Hancock porcine bioprostheses. There were 46 men an 25 women ranging in age from 21 to 64 years (mean, 47.5 ± 5 years). Sixteen patients (22.5%) died at operation. The survivors were followed from 0.2 to 11.5 years (mean, 5.7 ± 3 years). Duration of follow-up was 313 patient-years and was 100% complete. Overall late mortality was 6.7 ± 1.4% per patient-year (linearized incidence), and actuarial survival was 54.2 ± 8% at 11 years. Endocarditis occurred in 4 patients (linearized incidence of 1.3 ± 0.6% per patient-year); thromboembolic events were sustained by 4 patients (linearized incidence of 1.3 ± 0.6% per patient-year); the event was fatal in 1 patient. Actuarial freedom from thromboembolism was 90 ± 4.8% at 11 years. Reoperation for primary tissue failure was performed in 11 patients (linearized incidence of 3.5 ± 1% per patient-year) with no deaths; in 7 patients both bioprostheses were explanted, and in 4, only the mitral bioprosthesis was replaced. The durability of explanted aortic and mitral porcine bioprostheses was not significantly different, and the evaluation of seven pairs of explanted aortic and mitral bioprostheses showed similar amounts of calcification. Actuarial freedom from reoperation because of primary tissue failure was 44.6 ± 13.7% at 11 years.

Our experience indicates that (1) reoperation for primary tissue failure can be performed with low operative risk in patients who underwent MVR + AVR with porcine bioprostheses and (2) the durability of aortic and mitral porcine bioprostheses implanted in the same patient is similar.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.Home page
G. Rizzoli, S. Mirone, P. Ius, E. Polesel, T. Bottio, L. Salvador, C. Zussa, G. Gerosa, and C. Valfre
Fifteen-year results with the Hancock II valve: A multicenter experience.
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2006; 132(3): 602 - 609.e4.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.Home page
A. M. Gillinov, E. H. Blackstone, D. M. Cosgrove III, J. White, P. Kerr, A. Marullo, P. M. McCarthy, and B. W. Lytle
Mitral valve repair with aortic valve replacement is superior to double valve replacement
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2003; 125(6): 1372 - 1387.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
P. S. Brown Jr, C. S. Roberts, C. L. McIntosh, J. A. Swain, and R. E. Clark
Relation between choice of prostheses and late outcome in double-valve replacement
Ann. Thorac. Surg., March 1, 1993; 55(3): 631 - 640.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Eur J Cardiothorac SurgHome page
U. Bortolotti, A. Milano, G. Thiene, and A. Mazzucco
Original expectations of the Hancock valve and 20 years of clinical reality
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, January 1, 1992; 6(Supplement_1): S75 - S78.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
U. Bortolotti, A. Milano, L. Testolin, V. Tursi, A. Mazzucco, and V. Gallucci
Influence of type of prosthesis on late results after combined mitral-aortic valve replacement
Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 1991; 52(1): 84 - 91.
[Abstract] [PDF]




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 © 1987 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.