JACC
HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Coll Cardiol, 1987; 10:719-732
© 1987 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
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 Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hammermeister, K.
Right arrow Articles by Rahimtoola, S
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hammermeister, K.
Right arrow Articles by Rahimtoola, S

Comparison of outcome after valve replacement with a bioprosthesis versus a mechanical prosthesis: initial 5 year results of a randomized trial

KE Hammermeister, WG Henderson, CM Burchfiel, GK Sethi, J Souchek, C Oprian, AB Cantor, E Folland, S Khuri, and S Rahimtoola

Cardiology Section, VA Medical Center, Denver, Colorado 80220.

The Veterans Administration Cooperative Study on Valvular Heart Disease was organized to compare survival and incidence of valve-related complications between patients receiving a bioprosthesis (the Hancock porcine heterograft) and a mechanical prosthesis (the Bjork-Shiley spherical disc valve). Five hundred seventy-five patients undergoing single aortic or mitral valve replacement were randomized at surgery to one of the two valve types. At an average follow-up of 5 years (range 3 to 8) there are no statistically significant differences in survival between patients with the two valve types in the aortic valve replacement group. There is a statistically nonsignificant trend toward improved survival in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement with a bioprosthesis compared with a mechanical prosthesis (5 year survival probability was 0.70 +/- 0.05 and 0.58 +/- 0.06, respectively). Fatal and nonfatal valve-related complications occurred significantly less frequently in patients with a bioprosthesis compared with a mechanical prosthesis for both mitral and aortic valve replacement. Five year complication-free probability was 0.67 +/- 0.05 and 0.45 +/- 0.06, respectively, for patients with mitral valve replacement and 0.63 +/- 0.04 and 0.53 +/- 0.04, respectively, for those with aortic valve replacement. The difference in overall complication rates was largely due to the increased number of clinically significant but nonfatal bleeding episodes in patients receiving a mechanical prosthesis. Adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics between patients receiving a mitral mechanical prosthesis and a mitral bioprosthesis reduced the statistical significance of the difference in both mortality and complications.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
HeartHome page
E B Schelbert, M S Vaughan-Sarrazin, K F Welke, and G E Rosenthal
Valve type and long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement in older patients
Heart, September 1, 2008; 94(9): 1181 - 1188.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Card Surg AdultHome page
N. D. Desai and G. T. Christakis
Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: Stented Pericardial and Porcine Valves
Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 857 - 894.
[Full Text]


Home page
CirculationHome page
M. S. Kalkat, M.-B. Edwards, K. M. Taylor, and R. S. Bonser
Composite Aortic Valve Graft Replacement: Mortality Outcomes in a National Registry
Circulation, September 11, 2007; 116(11_suppl): I-301 - I-306.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
B. Lima, G. C. Hughes, A. Lemaire, J. Jaggers, D. D. Glower, and W. G. Wolfe
Short-Term and Intermediate-Term Outcomes of Aortic Root Replacement with St. Jude Mechanical Conduits and Aortic Allografts
Ann. Thorac. Surg., August 1, 2006; 82(2): 579 - 585.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.Home page
W.R.E. Jamieson, O. von Lipinski, R.T. Miyagishima, L.H. Burr, M.T. Janusz, H. Ling, G.J. Fradet, F. Chan, and E. Germann
Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses assessed by composites of valve-related complications to 15 years after mitral valve replacement
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2005; 129(6): 1301 - 1308.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
HeartHome page
H Oxenham, P Bloomfield, D J Wheatley, R J Lee, J Cunningham, R J Prescott, and H C Miller
Twenty year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses
Heart, July 1, 2003; 89(7): 715 - 721.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Card Surg AdultHome page
N. D. Desai and G. T. Christakis
Stented Mechanical/Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement
Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2003; 2(2003): 825 - 856.
[Full Text]


Home page
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.Home page
S. S. Khan, A. Trento, M. DeRobertis, R. M. Kass, M. Sandhu, L. S. C. Czer, C. Blanche, S. Raissi, G. P. Fontana, W. Cheng, et al.
Twenty-year comparison of tissue and mechanical valve replacement
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., August 1, 2001; 122(2): 257 - 269.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
K. Hammermeister, G. K. Sethi, W. G. Henderson, F. L. Grover, C. Oprian, and S. H. Rahimtoola
Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 1, 2000; 36(4): 1152 - 1158.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
F. F. Ungacta, V. G. Davila-Roman, M. J. Moulton, B. P. Cupps, P. Moustakidis, D. S. Fishman, R. Actis, B. A. Szabo, D. Li, N. T. Kouchoukos, et al.
MRI-Radiofrequency Tissue Tagging in Patients With Aortic Insufficiency Before and After Operation
Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 1998; 65(4): 943 - 950.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch Fam MedHome page
D. Potyk and P. Raudaskoski
Preoperative Cardiac Evaluation for Elective Noncardiac Surgery
Arch Fam Med, March 1, 1998; 7(2): 164 - 173.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CirculationHome page
W.R. E. Jamieson, A. I. Munro, L. H. Burr, E. Germann, R. T. Miyagishima, and H. Ling
Influence of Coronary Artery Bypass and Age on Clinical Performance After Aortic and Mitral Valve Replacement With Biological and Mechanical Prostheses
Circulation, November 1, 1995; 92(9): 101 - 106.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.Home page
S. Khan, A. Chaux, J. Matloff, C. Blanche, M. DeRobertis, R. Kass, T. P. Tsai, A. Trento, S. Nessim, R. Gray, et al.
The St. Jude Medical valveExperience with 1000 cases
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., December 1, 1994; 108(6): 1010 - 1020.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.Home page
F. L. Grover, D. J. Cohen, C. Oprian, W. G. Henderson, G. Sethi, K. E. Hammermeister, and Participants in the Department of Veterans Affairs
Determinants of the occurrence of and survival from prosthetic valve endocarditisExperience of the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study on Valvular Heart Disease
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., August 1, 1994; 108(2): 207 - 214.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
NEJMHome page
K. E. Hammermeister, G. K. Sethi, W. G. Henderson, C. Oprian, T. Kim, S. Rahimtoola, and The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study on Valvular
A Comparison of Outcomes in Men 11 Years after Heart-Valve Replacement with a Mechanical Valve or Bioprosthesis
N. Engl. J. Med., May 6, 1993; 328(18): 1289 - 1296.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
JWatch GeneralHome page
PORCINE AND MECHANICAL HEART VALVES COMPARED
Journal Watch (General), October 9, 1987; 1987(1009): 3 - 3.
[Full Text]




HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
Copyright © 1987 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.