| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71:S273-S277
© 2001 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons
a University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
b Albertinen Krankenhaus, Hamburg, Germany
c Regina General Hospital, Regina, Canada
d Quebec Cardiology Institute, Quebec, Canada
Address reprints requests to Dr Fradet, 603-575 West 8th Ave, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V5Z 1C6
e-mail: gfradet{at}interchange.ubc.ca
Presented at the VIII International Symposium on Cardiac Bioprostheses, Cancun, Mexico, Nov 3–5, 2000.
Background. A new third generation porcine bioprosthesis was developed in an attempt to improve on hemodynamic performance and durability of current prostheses.
Methods. One thousand, two hundred, sixty patients underwent aortic valve replacement and 366 patients underwent mitral valve replacement between February 1994 and September 2000. The cumulative follow-up was 3,696.3 patient-years for aortic valve replacement and 880.1 patient-years for mitral valve replacement. Follow-up was complete for 95.5% of aortic valve replacement patients and 97.5% of mitral valve replacement patients.
Results. For aortic valve replacement, freedom from valve-related adverse events at 1 year was 96.5% ± 0.5% for antithromboembolic-related hemorrhage and 100% for structural valve deterioration. Freedom from valve-related adverse events at 5 years was 93.8% ± 2.6% for antithromboembolic-related hemorrhage and 99.3% ± 0.9% for structural valve deterioration. For mitral valve replacement, freedom from valve-related adverse events at 1 year was 96.0% ± 1.1% for antithromboembolic-related hemorrhage and 100% for structural valve deterioration. Freedom from valve-related adverse events at 4 years was 92.1% ± 3.7% for antithromboembolic-related hemorrhage and 100% for structural valve deterioration.
Conclusions. These results support the claim that the Mosaic bioprosthetic valve is efficacious and safe, but continued follow-up is mandatory to determine mid- and long-term performance.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Bleiziffer, W. B Eichinger, I. Hettich, R. Guenzinger, D. Ruzicka, R. Bauernschmitt, and R. Lange Prediction of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch prior to aortic valve replacement: which is the best method? Heart, May 1, 2007; 93(5): 615 - 620. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Li, J. G. Dumesnil, P. Mathieu, and P. Pibarot Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on pulmonary arterial pressure after mitral valve replacement J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., April 5, 2005; 45(7): 1034 - 1040. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Seitelberger, J. Bialy, R. Gottardi, G. Seebacher, R. Moidl, M. Mittelbock, P. Simon, and E. Wolner Relation between size of prosthesis and valve gradient: comparison of two aortic bioprosthesis Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., March 1, 2004; 25(3): 358 - 363. [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. Gudbjartsson, S. Aranki, and L. H. Cohn Mechanical/Bioprosthetic Mitral Valve Replacement Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2003; 2(2003): 951 - 986. [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 |
