Cardiac Valve Replacement with Mechanical Prostheses: Current Status and Trends

  • F. Javier Teijeira
  • Adel A. Mikhail
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 235)


In this chapter, an attempt is made to review the current state of the art regarding the design aspects of mechanical valves and their correlation with clinical performance Literature is reviewed and analyzed for pressure gradients and thromboembolic rates of monoleaflet and bileaflet valve designs. Two ten-year studies are focused on as examples of long-term results. Finally, current trends in valve design and materials are discussed.


Mitral Valve Replacement Jude Medical Valve Prosthesis Pyrolytic Carbon Valve Thrombosis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bjork VO: The optimal opening angle of the Bjork-Shiley tilting disc valve prosthesis, Scand. J. Thor. Cardiovasc. Surg., 15: 223, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yoganathan AP, Sung H-W, Woo Y-R, et al.: In vitro velocity and turbulence measurements in the vicinity of three new mechanical aortic heart valve prostheses: Bjork-Shiley Monostrut, Omni-Carbon, and Duromedics, J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 95: 929, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giersiepen M, Krause U, Knott E, et al.: Velocity and shear stress distribution downstream of mechanical heart valves in pulsatile flow, The International J. of Artificial Organs, 12: 261, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Knott E, Reul H, Knoch M, et al.: In vitro comparison of aortic heart valve prostheses, J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 96: 952, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pai GP, Ellison RG, Rubin JW, et al.: Disc immobilization of Bjork-Shiley and Medtronic Hall valves during and immediately after valve replacement, Ann Thorac. Surg., 44: 73, 1987.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Effler DB: Valve sticking: Complication of Medtronic-Hall prosthesis, Thai. J. Surg., 8: 41, 1987.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Son JAM, Steinseifer U, Reul H, et al.: Jamming of prosthetic heart valves by suture trapping: Experimental findings, Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surgeon, 37: 288, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fujita T, Kawazoe K, Umezu M, et al.: Valve characteristics and its clinical application, especially on the biological valve, Japanese Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 1: 30, 1981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kohler J: A comparison of pressure-and volume-loss of technical and biological heart valve prostheses, Z. Kardiol., 75 (Suppl. 2): 272, 1986.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kisanuki A, Tei C, Arikawa K, et al.: Continuous wave Doppler echocardiographic assessment of prosthetic aortic valves, J. of Cardiography, 16: 121, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Panidis IP, Ross J, Mintz GS: Normal and abnormal prosthetic valve function as assessed by Doppler echocardiography, J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 8: 317, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bhatia S, Moten M, Werner M: Frequency of unusually high transvalvular Doppler velocities in patients with normal prosthetic valves, J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 9 (Suppl A): 238A, 1987.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gibbs JL, Wharton GA, Williams GJ: Doppler ultrasound of normally functioning mechanical mitral and aortic valve prostheses, Int. J. Cardiol., 18: 391, 1988.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tatineni S, Barner HB, Pearson AC, et al.: Rest and exercise evaluation of St. Jude Medical and Medtronic Hall prostheses: Influence of primary lesion, valvular type, valvular size, and left ventricular function, Circulation, 80 (Suppl I): I16, 1989.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Plehn J: Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Hanover, New Hampshire, Private Communication, 1990.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Edmunds LH Jr., Clark RE, Cohn LH, et al.: Guidelines for reporting morbidity and mortality after cardiac valvular operations, Ann Thorac. Surg., 46: 257, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sherman DG, Goldman L, Whiting RB, et al.: Risk of thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation, Arch. Neurol., 41: 708, 1984.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Caplan LR, D’Cruz I, Hier DB, et al: Atrial size, atrial fibrillation, and stroke, Ann. Neurol., 19: 158, 1986.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Petersen P, Godtfredsen J: Embolic complications in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, Stroke, 17: 622, 1986.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Steele PP, Rainwater J: Favorable effect of sulfinpyrazone on thromboembolism in patients with rheumatic heart disease, Circulation, 62: 462, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    DeWall RA, Ellis RL: Implantation Techniques: A primary consideration in valve surgery, Ann. Thorac. Surg., 48: S59, 1989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mikhail AA, Ellis R, Johnson S: Eighteen-year evolution from the Lillehei-Kaster valve to the Omni design, Ann. Thorac. Surg., 48: S61, 1989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Edmunds LH Jr.: Thromboembolic complications of current cardiac valvular prostheses, Ann. Thorac. Surg., 34: 96, 1982.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Edmunds LH Jr.: Thrombotic and bleeding complications of prosthetic heart valves, Ann. Thorac. Surg., 44: 430, 1987.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Teijeira FJ: 10-years clinical experience with the Omniscience mechanical prosthesis, Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Mediterranean Association of Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery, September 23–27, Alexandria, Egypt, 369, 1991.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Czer LSC, Chaux A, Matloff JM, et al: Ten-year experience with the St. Jude Medical valve for primary valve replacement, J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 100: 44, 1990.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fananapazir L, Clarke DB, Dark JF, et al.: Results of valve replacement with the Omniscience prosthesis, J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 86: 621, 1983.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mestres CA, Igual A, Murtra M: Clinical performance of the Omniscience prosthetic heart valve with Dacron sewing ring, Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surgeon, 33: 296.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cortina JM, Martinell J, Artiz V, et al: Comparative clinical results with Omniscience (STM1), Medtronic-Hall, and Bjork-Shiley convexo-concave (70 degrees) prostheses in mitral valve replacement, J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 91: 174, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Antunes MJ, Wessels A, Sadowski RG, et al: Medtronic Hall valve replacement in a third-world population group: A review of the performance of 1000 prostheses, J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 95: 980, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Beaudet RL, Poirier NL, Doyle D, et al: The Medtronic-Hall cardiac valve: 7–1/2 years’ clinical experience, Ann. Thorac. Surg., 42: 644, 1986.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Butchart EG, Lewis PA, Grunkemeier GL, et al: Low risk of thrombosis and serious embolic events despite low-intensity anticoagulation: Experience with 1,004 Medtronic Hall valves, Circulation, 78 (Suppl I): I-66, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Keenan RJ, Armitage JM, Trento A, et al.: Clinical experience with the Medtronic-Hall valve prosthesis, Ann. Thorac. Surg., 50: 748, 1990.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lopez JF, Bharadwaj B, Lal S: Experience with Hall-Kaster valves, Vascular. Surgery, 24: 16, 1990.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nitter-Hauge S, Semb B, Abdelnoor M, et al.: A 5 year experience with the Medtronic-Hall disc valve prosthesis, Circulation., 68 (Suppl II): II-169, 1983.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Starek PJK, Murray GF, Keagy BA, et al.: Clinical experience with the Hall pivoting disk valve, Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surgeon, 31/II: 66, 1983.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Akalin H, Corapcioglu ET, Ozyurda U, et al: Clinical evaluation of the Omniscience cardiac valve prosthesis: Follow-up of up to 6 years, J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 103: 259, 1992.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Carrier M, Martineau J-P, Bonan R, et al: Clinical and hemodynamic assessment of the Omniscience prosthetic heart valve, J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 93: 300, 1987.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Damle A, Coles J, Teijeira J, et al: A six-year study of the Omniscience valve in four Canadian centers, Ann. Thorac. Surg., 43: 513, 1987.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    DeWall R, Pelletier LC, Panebianco A, et al: Five-year clinical experience with the Omniscience cardiac valve, Ann Thorac. Surg., 38: 3, 1984.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ads A, Padro JM, Camara ML, et al: Clinical and hemodynamic results of cardiac valve replacement with the Monostrut Bjork-Shiley prosthesis, J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 95: 423, 1988.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nakano S, Kawashima Y, Matsuda H, et al.: A five-year appraisal and hemodynamic evaluation of the Bjork-Shiley Monostrut valve, J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 101: 881, 1991.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Thulin LI, Bain WH, Huysmans HH, et al.: Heart valve replacement with the Bjork-Shiley Monostrut valve: Early results of a multicenter clinical investigation, Ann. Thorac. Surg., 45: 164, 1988.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Arom KV, Nicoloff DM, Kersten TE, et al: St. Jude Medical prosthesis: Valve-related deaths and complications, Ann. Thorac. Surg., 43: 591, 1987.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Baudet EM, Oca CC, Roques XF, et al: A 5–1/2 year experience with the St. Jude Medical cardiac valve prosthesis: Early and late results of 737 valve replacements in 671 patients, J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 90: 137, 1985.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Burckhardt D, Striebel D, Vogt S, et al: Heart valve replacement with St. Jude Medical valve prosthesis: Long-term experience in 743 patients in Switzerland, Circulation, 78 (Suppl I): I-18, 1988.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    DiSesa VJ, Collins JJ, Cohn LH: Hematological complications with the St. Jude valve and reduced-dose Coumadin, Ann. Thorac. Surg., 48: 280, 1989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kinsley RH, Antunes MJ, Colsen PR: St. Jude Medical valve replacement: An evaluation of valve performance, J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 92: 349, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mattila SP, Mattila EJ, Harjula AL: Long-term follow-up of St. Jude Medical valve, Scand. J. Thor. Cardiovasc. Surg., 24: 121, 1990.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Myers ML, Lawrie GM, Crawford ES, et al.: The St. Jude valve prosthesis: Analysis of the clinical results in 815 implants and the need for systemic anticoagulation, J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 13: 57, 1989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Nair CK, Mohiuddin SM, Hilleman DE, et al.: Ten-year results with the St. Jude Medical prosthesis, Am. J. Cardiol., 65: 217, 1990.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Panidis IP, Ren J-F, Kotler MN, et al.: Clinical and echocardiographic evaluation of the St. Jude cardiac valve prosthesis: Follow-up of 126 patients, J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 4: 454, 1984.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Vogt S, Hoffmann A, Roth J, et al.: Heart valve replacement with the BjorkShiley and St. Jude Medical prostheses: A randomized comparison in 178 patients, Eur. Heart J., 11: 583, 1990.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Antunes MJ: Clinical performance of St. Jude and Medtronic-Hall prostheses: A randomized comparative study, Ann. Thorac. Surg., 50: 743, 1990.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Olesen K, Rygg I, Wennevold A, et al.: Aortic valve replacement with the Lillehei-Kaster prosthesis in 262 patients: An assessment after 9–17 years, Eur. Heart J., 12: 680, 1991.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lindblom D, Bjork VO, Semb BKH: Mechanical failure of the Bjork-Shiley valve: Incidence, clinical presentation, and management, J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 92: 894, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ritchie RO, Dauskardt RH, Yu W, et al.: Cyclic fatigue-crack propagation, stress-corrosion, and fracture toughness behavior in pyrolytic carbon-coated graphite for prosthetic heart valve applications, J. of Biomedical Materials Research, 24: 189, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kafesjian R, Chahine G, Frederick G, et al.: Characterization of the cavitation potential of pyrolytic carbon, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Surgery for Heart Valve Disease, June 12–16, London, England, 38, 1989.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lamson TC, Stinebring DR, Deutsch S, et al.: Real-time in vitro observation of cavitation in a prosthetic heat valve, ASAIO Transactions, 37: M351, 1991.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gross JM, Guo GX, Hwang NHC: Venturi pressure cannot cause cavitation in mechanical heart valve prostheses, ASAIO Transactions, 37: M357, 1991.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Pilichowski P, Gaudin Ph, Brichon P-Y, et al.: Fracture and embolization of a Lillehei-Kaster mitral valve prosthesis disc: One case successfully operated, Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surgeon, 35: 385, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    DDL (Devices and Diagnostics Letter): Washington Business Information, Inc., Arlington, Virginia, 1, July 1, 1988.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    MH MDR (Medtronic Hall, Medical Device Report), (FDA M219190), 1991.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hasse J: Escaped leaflet in a St. Jude Medical mitral prosthesis, In: Advances in Cardiac Valves, Clinical Perpectives, Yorke Medical Books, 1983.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hjelms E: Escape of a leaflet from a St. Jude Medical prosthesis in the mitral position, Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surgeon, 31: 310, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Odell JA, Durandt J, Shama DM, et al.: Spontaneous embolization of a St. Jude prosthetic mitral valve leaflet, Ann. Thorac. Surg., 39: 569, 1985.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Orsinelli DA, Becker RC, Cuenoud HF, et al.: Mechanical failure of a St. Jude Medical prosthesis, Am. J. Cardiol., 67: 906, 1991.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    SJM MDR (St. Jude Medical, Medical Device Reports), (FDA M116225), 1985.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    SJM MDR (St. Jude Medical, Medical Device Reports), (FDA M125685), 1986.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    SJM MDR (St. Jude Medical, Medical Device Reports), (FDA M148399), 1987.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    SJM MDR (St. Jude Medical, Medical Device Reports), (FDA M182613, M184089, M189945, M202719, M205267), 1990.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Alvarez J, Deal CW: Leaflet escape from a Duromedics valve, J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 99: 372, 1990.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Dimitri WR, Williams BT: Fracture of the Duromedics mitral valve housing with leaflet escape, J. Cardiovasc. Surg., 31: 41, 1990.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Klepetko W, Moritz A, Mlczoch J, et al.: Leaflet fracture in Edwards-Duromedics bileaflet valves, J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 97: 90, 1989.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    DDL (Devices and Diagnostics Letter): Washington Business Information, Inc., Arlington, Virginia, 3, June 3, 1988.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    DRM MDR (Duromedics, Medical Device Reports): (FDA M175128, M177663, M178926), 1989.Google Scholar
  77. 78.
    DRM MDR (Duromedics, Medical Device Reports): (FDA M186679, M209449, M209571, M217126), 1990.Google Scholar
  78. 79.
    DRM MDR (Duromedics, Medical Device Reports): (FDA M223051, M223464, M223758, M232445, M246900, M248799), 1991.Google Scholar
  79. 80.
    Angelini G, Price C, Jenkins G: Glassy carbon: A new material for the manufacture of mechanical heart valve prostheses, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Surgery for Heart Valve Disease, June 12–16, London, England, 40, 1989.Google Scholar
  80. 81.
    Bjork VO: Development of an artificial heart valve, Ann. Thorac. Surg., 50: 151, 1990.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 82.
    Bjork VO, Sternlieb JJ, Kaminsky DB: Optimal microporous surface for endothelialization of metal heart valves in the blood stream, Scand. J. Thor. Cardiovasc. Surg., 24: 97, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 83.
    Bjork VO, Sternlieb JJ, Kaminsky DB: Modified porous metal-surfaced BjorkShiley Monostrut heart valve, Scand. J. Thor. Cardiovasc. Surg., 24: 101, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 84.
    Imachi K, Mabuchi K, Chinzei T: Blood compatibility of the jellyfish valve without anticoagulant, ASAIO Transactions, 37: M220, 1991.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 85.
    van den Brink RBA, Visser CA, Basart DCG, et al.: Comparison of transthoracic and transesophageal color Doppler flow imaging in patients with mechanical prostheses in the mitral valve position, Am. J. Cardiol., 63: 1471, 1989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 86.
    Jones EJ: St. Jude Medical prosthesis, J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 81: 642, 1981.Google Scholar
  86. 87.
    von der Emde J, Kockerling F, Rein J, et al.: Measures of prevention and technical problems during reoperations in cardiac surgery, Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surgeon, 34: 5, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 88.
    Taggart DP, Spyt TJ, Wheatley DJ, et al.: Severe haemolysis with the St. Jude Medical prosthesis, Eur. J. Cardio-thorac. Surg., 2: 137, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 89.
    Kinsley RH, Colsen PR, Antunes MJ: Medtronic-Hall valve replacement in a third world population group, Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surgeon, 31 /11: 69, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Javier Teijeira
    • 1
    • 2
  • Adel A. Mikhail
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Cardiovascular & Thoracic Surgery DivisionUniversity of SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada
  2. 2.MDR&R ConsultantsBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations