This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bach, D. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bach, D. S.

VIEWPOINT

Choice of prosthetic heart valves:update for the next generation

^* Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Manuscript received April 3, 2003; revised manuscript received April 30, 2003, accepted June 3, 2003.

^* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. David S. Bach, L3119 Women's–0273, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-0273, USA.
dbach{at}umich.edu

Intervention for valvular heart disease poses unique clinical challenges in cardiology because the diseases are of relatively low prevalence, the interventions do not lend themselves to randomized comparative trials, and important clinical end points are assessed only after decades of follow-up. In addition, continuing advances in prosthetic heart valve technology make follow-up a moving target because long-term data by definition are available only for older prostheses. Newer tissue and mechanical prostheses afford superior hemodynamics compared with their older counterparts, and data suggest that durability and patient mortality are superior with newer compared with older bioprostheses. Arbitrary cutoffs dictating valve choice based predominantly on patient age may not give appropriate weight to individual patient perspectives. In educating and counseling patients regarding choices in heart valve prostheses, the clinician should help the patient weigh the relative merits for the individual patient of projected mortality, valve durability, and requirement for anticoagulation, with associated freedom from re-operation, hemorrhagic and thromboembolic risk, and impact on lifestyle.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				R. El Oakley, P. Kleine, and D. S. Bach Choice of Prosthetic Heart Valve in Today's Practice Circulation, January 15, 2008; 117(2): 253 - 256. [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. L. Grunkemeier, R. Jin, and A. Starr Prosthetic heart valves: objective performance criteria versus randomized clinical trial. Ann. Thorac. Surg., September 1, 2006; 82(3): 776 - 780. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. S. Bach, N. D. Kon, J. G. Dumesnil, C. F. Sintek, and D. B. Doty Ten-Year Outcome After Aortic Valve Replacement with the Freestyle Stentless Bioprosthesis Ann. Thorac. Surg., August 1, 2005; 80(2): 480 - 487. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Bloomfield Choice of prosthetic heart valves: 20-year results of the Edinburgh Heart Valve Trial J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 4, 2004; 44(3): 667 - 667. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Rahimtoola Reply J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 4, 2004; 44(3): 667 - 668. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. S. Bach Reply J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 4, 2004; 44(3): 668 - 668. [Full Text] [PDF]