This Article 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 Rahimtoola, S. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rahimtoola, S. H.

COMMENTARY

The next generation of prosthetic heart valves needs a proven track record of patient outcomes at 15 to 20 years

^* Griffith Center, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, LAC+USC Medical Center, Keck School of Medicine at USC, Los Angeles, California, USA

Manuscript received June 23, 2003; revised manuscript received July 1, 2003, accepted July 22, 2003.

^* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Shahbudin H. Rahimtoola, University of Southern California, 2025 Zonal Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90033, USA.
luzcanlas{at}yahoo.com

Currently, a selection of good, albeit not perfect, prosthetic heart valves (PHVs) with data on patient outcomes with follow-up times of 15 to 20 years or longer is available. The "next generation" of PHVs have some interesting features, but there are no data on patient outcomes at 15 to 20 years. The history of PHVs is that: 1) major advances have come in small increments, and 2) extrapolations made from early results were not correct at long term, and when this occurred, patients paid the price in terms of mortality and morbidity. Thus, great enthusiasm from early results and premature prediction may be inappropriate. The data on long-term outcomes are needed and in 2003 one should preferentially select a PHV with proven long-term results.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. S.U. Myken and O. Bech-Hansen A 20-year experience of 1712 patients with the Biocor porcine bioprosthesis. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., January 1, 2009; 137(1): 76 - 81. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]

				G. Rizzoli, S. Mirone, P. Ius, E. Polesel, T. Bottio, L. Salvador, C. Zussa, G. Gerosa, and C. Valfre Fifteen-year results with the Hancock II valve: A multicenter experience. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2006; 132(3): 602 - 609.e4. [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]

				E. H. Blackstone, A. M. Gillinov, and D. M. Cosgrove Reply to the Editor J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2004; 127(6): 1852 - 1854. [Full Text] [PDF]