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
Luca Testolin
Vincenzo Tursi
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 1991;52:84-91
© 1991 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons


Articles

Influence of type of prosthesis on late results after combined mitral-aortic valve replacement

Uberto Bortolotti, MD*, Aldo Milano, MD, Luca Testolin, MD, Vincenzo Tursi, MD, Alessandro Mazzucco, MD, Vincenzo Gallucci, MD

Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University of Padova Medical School, Padova, Italy

Accepted for publication March 1, 1991.

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

The influence of type of prosthesis on the late outcome of patients with combined mitral-aortic valve replacement was analyzed by comparing, at a 14-year follow-up, patients receiving two biological prostheses (group 1; n = 135), two mechanical prostheses (group 2; n = 221), or a mechanical prosthesis in the aortic position and a bioprosthesis in the mitral position (group 3; n = 97). No difference was found among the three groups in terms of actuarial survival and incidence of and freedom from valve-related deaths, thromboemboli, and hemorrhages. Patients with biological prostheses had a significantly greater incidence of structural valve deterioration, reoperations, and overall complications when compared with patients with only mechanical prostheses. The results of an extended follow-up of patients with combined mitralaortic valve replacement indicate that mechanical prostheses perform better in the long-term owing to their superior durability when compared with biological valves. The use of bioprostheses should be confined to old patients with limited life expectancy because of their cardiac disease, provided that anticoagulants are not used. Combination of mechanical and biological prostheses in the same patient should be avoided because the advantages of each type of prosthesis are lost.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Card Surg AdultHome page
H. V. Schaff and R. M. Suri
Multiple Valve Disease
Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 1129 - 1158.
[Full Text]


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
Card Surg AdultHome page
H. V. Schaff and D. H. Marsh
Multiple Valve Disease
Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2003; 2(2003): 1017 - 1045.
[Full Text]


Home page
Eur Heart J SupplHome page
C. Huth, A. Friedl, A. Rost, and for the GELIA Study Investigator Group
Intensity of oral anticoagulation after implantation of St. Jude Medical aortic prosthesis: analysis of the GELIA Database (GELIA 4)
Eur. Heart J. Suppl., December 1, 2001; 3(suppl_Q): Q33 - Q38.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
T. Caus, P. Rouviere, F. Collart, A. Mouly-Bandini, J.-R. Monties, and T. Mesana
Late results of double-valve replacement with biologic or mechanical prostheses
Ann. Thorac. Surg., May 1, 2001; 71(2007): S261 - S264.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
S. John, E. Ravikumar, C. N. John, and V. V. Bashi
25-year experience with 456 combined mitral and aortic valve replacement for rheumatic heart disease
Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 2000; 69(4): 1167 - 1172.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
A. Ian Munro, W. R. Eric Jamieson, L. H. Burr, H. Ling, R. T. Miyagishima, and E. Germann
Comparison of porcine bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses in multiple valve replacement operations
Ann. Thorac. Surg., August 1, 1995; 60(suppl_2): S459 - S463.
[Abstract] [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 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 © 1991 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.