| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71:S224-S227
© 2001 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons
a Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Address reprint requests to Dr Jamieson, St. Paul’s Hospital, 331-332 Burrard Bldg, 1081 Burrard St, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 1Y6, Canada
e-mail: wrej{at}interchange.ubc.ca
Presented at the VIII International Symposium on Cardiac Bioprostheses, Cancun, Mexico, Nov 3–5, 2000.
Background. The Carpentier–Edwards supraannular porcine bioprosthesis experience for more than 18 years has been evaluated by actuarial and actual analysis to determine the clinical performance in aortic valve replacement.
Methods. From 1981 to 1998, 1,823 patients (mean age 68.5 years, range 20 to 90 years) underwent 1,846 procedures. Previous coronary artery bypass was performed in 3.1% (56) and previous valve repair/replacement in 6.0% (110). Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting was performed in 41.5% (756).
Results. The overall valve-related complication rate was 4.5%/patient-year (567 patients) with a fatality rate of 0.9%/patient-year (110 patients). The patient survival, at 15 years, was 33.0% ± 3.7% for the 61 to 70 years age group and 13.5% ± 2.4% for the older than 70 years group. At 15 years, the overall actual, cumulative freedom from reoperation was 83.2% ± 1.4%, valve-related mortality was 88.0% ± 1.2%, and valve-related residual morbidity was 92.0% ± 0.8%. The actual freedom from structural valve deterioration at 15 years was 84.2% ± 2.8% for the 61 to 70 years group and 97.1% ± 0.9% for the older than 70 years group.
Conclusions. The Carpentier–Edwards porcine bioprosthesis provides excellent freedom from structural valve deterioration, and overall freedom from valve-related morbidity, mortality, and reoperation for aortic valve replacement for up to 15 years. The prosthesis is recommended for patients older than 70 years and for patients 61 to 70 years, especially when extended survival is not anticipated.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. W.A. van Geldorp, W.R. E. Jamieson, A. P. Kappetein, J. P.A. Puvimanasinghe, M. J.C. Eijkemans, G. L. Grunkemeier, J. J.M. Takkenberg, and A. J.J.C. Bogers Usefulness of microsimulation to translate valve performance into patient outcome: Patient prognosis after aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier Edwards supra-annular valve J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2007; 134(3): 702 - 709. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F.-C. Riess, R. Bader, E. Cramer, L. Hansen, B. Kleijnen, G. Wahl, J. Wallrath, S. Winkel, and N. Bleese Hemodynamic Performance of the Medtronic Mosaic Porcine Bioprosthesis Up to Ten Years Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 2007; 83(4): 1310 - 1318. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Sawaki, A. Usui, T. Abe, M. Yoshikawa, T. Akita, and Y. Ueda Late Mortality and Morbidity in Elderly Patients with Mechanical Heart Valves Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann, June 1, 2006; 14(3): 189 - 194. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. E. Jamieson, E. Germann, M. R Aupart, P. H Neville, M. A Marchand, and G. J Fradet 15-Year Comparison of Supra-Annular Porcine and PERIMOUNT Aortic Bioprostheses Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann, June 1, 2006; 14(3): 200 - 205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W.R. E. Jamieson, L. H. Burr, R. T. Miyagishima, E. Germann, J. S. MacNab, E. Stanford, F. Chan, M. T. Janusz, and H. Ling Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular aortic porcine bioprosthesis: Clinical performance over 20 years J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., October 1, 2005; 130(4): 994 - 1000. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Dagenais, P. Cartier, P. Voisine, D. Desaulniers, J. Perron, R. Baillot, G. Raymond, J. Metras, D. Doyle, and P. Mathieu Which biologic valve should we select for the 45- to 65-year-old age group requiring aortic valve replacement? J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., May 1, 2005; 129(5): 1041 - 1049. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J P A Puvimanasinghe, J J M Takkenberg, M B Edwards, M J C Eijkemans, E W Steyerberg, L A van Herwerden, K M Taylor, G L Grunkemeier, J D F Habbema, and A J J C Bogers Comparison of outcomes after aortic valve replacement with a mechanical valve or a bioprosthesis using microsimulation Heart, October 1, 2004; 90(10): 1172 - 1178. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. Gao, Y. Wu, G. L. Grunkemeier, A. P. Furnary, and A. Starr Durability of pericardial versus porcine aortic valves J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 21, 2004; 44(2): 384 - 388. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Bottio, G. Rizzoli, G. Thiene, G. Nesseris, D. Casarotto, and G. Gerosa Hemodynamic and clinical outcomes with the Biocor valve in the aortic position: An 8-year experience J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2004; 127(6): 1616 - 1623. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Vitale, S. C. Clark, A. Ramsden, A. Hasan, C. J. Hilton, and M. P. Holden Clinical and hemodynamic evaluation of small perimount aortic valves in patients aged 75 years or older Ann. Thorac. Surg., January 1, 2003; 75(1): 35 - 39. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. E. David Surgical Treatment of Aortic Valve Endocarditis Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2003; 2(2003): 857 - 866. [Full Text]
|
|
| 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 |
