Increased risk for double valve replacement with tissue and mechanical prostheses
- 49 Downloads
We wanted to determine whether there is any advantage of using a mitral tissue valve, when aortic and mitral valves are simultaneously replaced. We placed a tissue valve in the mitral position and a mechanical valve in the aortic position in 22 cases (combined group). In 31 other double valve replacements, mechanical prostheses were chosen for both positions (mechanical group). The mean follow-up time for the combined group was 8.9 years, and that for the mechanical group was 7.2 years. The 10-year survival rate and freedom from thromboembolism at 10 years were not different in the two groups. Treatment-related hemorrhage was seen in 3 patients of the combined group alone. Five patients among the combined group underwent reoperation because of bioprosthetic dysfunction, and the rate of freedom from reoperation at 10 years was 75 ±12%. The rate of freedom from all complications at 10 years was 43±11% for the combined group and 70±8% for the mechanical group. We find no advantage in mixing aortic mechanical and mitral tissue valves when performing double valve replacement.
Key wordsValve replacement Tissue valve Mechanical valve
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Misawa Y, Konishi H, Fuse K, Hasegawa T, Kato M, Hasegawa N, Kawahito K. Mid term clinical results with the CarboMedics Prosthetic heart valve. Jpn J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997; 25(suppl):113Google Scholar
- 8.Misawa Y, Hasegawa T, Kato M. Clinical experience of tricuspid valve replacement with bioprosthetic valve. Jpn J Cardiovasc Surg 1992;21:229–232Google Scholar
- 19.Iguro Y, Moriyama Y, Yamaoka A, Yamashita M, Shimokawa S, Toyohira H, Taira A. Clinical experience of 473 patients with the Omnicarbon prosthetic heart valve. J Hear Valve Dis 1999;8:674–679Google Scholar