PORCINE VALVE DURABILITY - A COMPARISON BETWEEN HANCOCK STANDARD AND HANCOCK-II BIOPROSTHESES

被引:31
作者
BORTOLOTTI, U
MILANO, A
MOSSUTO, E
MAZZARO, E
THIENE, G
CASAROTTO, D
机构
[1] UNIV PADUA,SCH MED,DEPT CARDIOVASC SURG,PADUA,ITALY
[2] UNIV PADUA,SCH MED,DEPT PATHOL,PADUA,ITALY
关键词
D O I
10.1016/0003-4975(95)00255-J
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Two series of patients who received a Hancock standard (HS) (1970 to 1983) and a Hancock II (HII) (1983 to 1992) porcine bioprosthesis were reviewed to compare bioprosthetic durability. Patients with HS porcine bioprostheses (n = 769) differed from those with HII bioprostheses mostly in mean age at operation (47 +/- 12 versus 62 +/- 9 years; p < 0.001); the latter prosthesis was implanted mostly in patients older than 50 years. At 8 years after operation, actuarial survival was 57% +/- 4% after aortic, 61% +/- 3% after mitral, and 39% +/- 7% after mitral-aortic valve replacement with the HS bioprosthesis; actuarial survival was 51% +/- 9% after aortic, 66% +/- 6% after mitral, and 49% +/- 10% after mitral and aortic valve replacement with an HII bioprosthesis. No cases of structural deterioration of HII bioprostheses were observed at 8 years in any patients. Actuarial freedom from structural valve deterioration was 78% +/- 4% after aortic, 88% +/- 3% after mitral, and 79% +/- 7% after mitral-aortic valve replacement with an HS bioprosthesis at 8 years. In all patients greater than 50 years of age, actuarial freedom from structural valve deterioration at 8 years was 90% +/- 3% in patients with an HS bioprosthesis and 100% in those with an HII bioprosthesis (p = 0.08). A trend to an improved durability of the HII bioprosthesis compared with the HS was observed during the first 8 postoperative years. Because these results could be influenced partly by the age difference in the two series of patients, a longer follow-up is needed to confirm these data.
引用
收藏
页码:S216 / S220
页数:5
相关论文
共 11 条
[1]  
BORTOLOTTI U, 1991, J CARDIAC SURG, V6, P544
[2]   ORIGINAL EXPECTATIONS OF THE HANCOCK VALVE AND 20 YEARS OF CLINICAL REALITY [J].
BORTOLOTTI, U ;
MILANO, A ;
THIENE, G ;
MAZZUCCO, A .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY, 1992, 6 :S75-S78
[3]  
BORTOLOTTI U, 1989, J THORAC CARDIOV SUR, V97, P415
[4]   CLINICAL AND HEMODYNAMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE HANCOCK-II BIOPROSTHESIS [J].
DAVID, TE ;
ARMSTRONG, S ;
SUN, Z .
ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 1992, 54 (04) :661-668
[5]   GUIDELINES FOR REPORTING MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY AFTER CARDIAC VALVULAR OPERATIONS [J].
EDMUNDS, LH ;
CLARK, RE ;
COHN, LH ;
MILLER, C ;
WEISEL, RD .
ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 1988, 46 (03) :257-259
[6]  
Gallucci V, 1988, J Card Surg, V3, P337
[7]  
JAMIESON WRE, 1989, ANN THORAC SURG, V48, P473
[8]   CALCIFIC DEGENERATION AS THE MAIN CAUSE OF PORCINE BIOPROSTHETIC VALVE FAILURE [J].
MILANO, A ;
BORTOLOTTI, U ;
TALENTI, E ;
VALFRE, C ;
ARBUSTINI, E ;
VALENTE, M ;
MAZZUCCO, A ;
GALLUCCI, V ;
THIENE, G .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 1984, 53 (08) :1066-1070
[9]  
Oury J H, 1988, J Card Surg, V3, P375
[10]  
Schoen F J, 1992, Cardiovasc Pathol, V1, P29, DOI 10.1016/1054-8807(92)90006-A