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

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map 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 Author home page(s): Roy G. Masters Michel Haddad Thierry Mesana Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Masters, R. G. Articles by Mesana, T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Masters, R. G. Articles by Mesana, T. Related Collections Valve disease

Ann Thorac Surg 2004;78:832-836
© 2004 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

---

Original article: cardiovascular

Clinical outcomes with the Hancock II bioprosthetic valve

^a Cardiac Surgery, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Canada
^b Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Accepted for publication March 25, 2004.

^* Address reprint requests to Dr Masters, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin St, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1Y 4W7
rmasters{at}ottawaheart.ca

BACKGROUND: The Hancock II bioprosthetic valve, which was first introduced to clinical use in 1978, differs from its predecessor in several ways. This study was designed to evaluate the durability and outcomes with this valve in patients who had isolated aortic or mitral valve replacements.

METHODS: From 1991 to 1999, 459 patients underwent aortic valve replacement and 138 patients underwent mitral valve replacement with the Hancock II bioprosthesis (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, MN). The mean age was 73.2 ± 0.4 and 72.6 ± 0.8 years in the aortic and mitral groups, respectively. Most patients were in New York Heart Association Class III or IV (50% aortic group and 69% mitral group) and concomitant coronary artery bypass was performed in 49.4% and 52.8% of patients, respectively. Patients were assessed annually and follow-up was up to 129 months in the aortic group and 100 months in the mitral group.

RESULTS: At 8 years, actuarial survival was 52% ± 5% in the aortic group and 57% ± 8% in the mitral group. Furthermore, the actuarial freedom from structural failure necessitating reoperation was 99% ± 0.5% in the aortic group and 98% ± 2% in the mitral group, and the actuarial freedom from repeat valve surgery due to all causes was 97% ± 2% and 96% ± 2%, respectively. Actuarial freedom from thromboembolic events was 89% ± 2% in the aortic group and 90% ± 5% in the mitral group.

CONCLUSIONS: The Hancock II valve has excellent midterm durability and clinical performance in older patients.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. Gudbjartsson, T. Absi, and S. Aranki Mitral Valve Replacement Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 1031 - 1068. [Full Text]

				A. Kulik, P. Bedard, B-K. Lam, F. D. Rubens, P. J. Hendry, R. G. Masters, T. G. Mesana, and M. Ruel Mechanical versus bioprosthetic valve replacement in middle-aged patients. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., September 1, 2006; 30(3): 485 - 491. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]