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


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Caus, T.
Right arrow Articles by Mesana, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Caus, T.
Right arrow Articles by Mesana, T.
Related Collections
Right arrow Valve disease

Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71:S261-S264
© 2001 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

Valvular bioprostheses over 15 years

Late results of double-valve replacement with biologic or mechanical prostheses

Thierry Caus, MDa, Philippe Rouvière, MDa, Frédéric Collart, MDa, Annick Mouly-Bandini, MDa, Jean-Raoul Montiès, MDa, Thierry Mesana, MD, PhDa

a Cardiac Surgery Service, CHU Timone, Marseille, France

Address reprint requests to Dr Caus, Cardiac Surgery Service, CHU Timone, Bd Jean Moulin, 13385 Marseille, France
e-mail: tcaus{at}ap-hm.fr

Presented at the VIII International Symposium on Cardiac Bioprostheses, Cancun, Mexico, Nov 3–5, 2000.

Background. We previously showed that the risk of reoperation for structural degeneration of bioprostheses was higher in cases involving patients older than 65 years (p = 0.003) and double-valve replacement (p = 0.02). The purpose of this study was to compare late outcome of mitral-aortic valve replacement using bioprostheses or mechanical valves.

Methods. The bioprosthesis group included all mainland France residents (n = 48) between 55 and 65 years old operated on between 1980 and 1995 for mitral-aortic valve replacement using bioprostheses. The mechanical valve group was obtained by matching each of these patients with a patient operated on using mechanical valves at approximately the same time during the study.

Results. In the bioprosthesis group, 10-year survival was 45% ± 8% versus 62% ± 7% in the mechanical valve group (not significant). The linearized reoperation rate was 6.8 per patient-year versus 1.1 per patient-year (p = 0.001), and the linearized reoperative mortality rate was 1.8 per patient-year and 0.7 per patient-year (not significant), respectively.

Conclusions. The reoperative mortality risk after mitral-aortic valve replacement using two bioprostheses does not significantly decrease overall survival after age 65 years.






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 © 2001 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.