HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article 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 Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rossiter, S. J. Articles by Shumway, N. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rossiter, S. J. Articles by Shumway, N. E.

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Vol 80, 54-60, Copyright © 1980 by The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and The Western Thoracic Surgical Association

ARTICLES

Hemodynamic and clinical comparison of the Hancock modified orifice and standard orifice bioprostheses in the aortic position

SJ Rossiter, DC Miller, EB Stinson, PE Oyer, BA Reitz, RJ Moreno-Cabral, JG Mace, EW Robert, TJ Tsagaris, RB Sutton, EL Alderman and NE Shumway

Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in patients with a small aortic root has been associated with postoperative transvalvular gradients. A modified orifice Hancock xenograft bioprosthesis has been developed and is purported to increase significantly the effective orifice area (as evaluated by in vitro testing) compared to the standard orifice Hancock bioprosthesis. To assess the in vivo differences, we compared 481 patients with standard orifice prostheses with 156 patients with modified orifice prostheses. Postoperative catheterization was performed in 24 patients with modified orifice (valve diameters 19 to 25 mm) with 14 with standard orifice valves (valve diameters 21 to 25 mm). Actuarial rates of survival, valve failure, endocarditis, and thromboembolism did not differ significantly between the two subgroups. Peak aortic valve gradients on the whole were less in the modified orifice subgroup than in the standard origice subgroup (12 +/- 1 torr versus 20 +/- 6 torr [mean +/- SEM]), but the difference was not statistically significant (p greather than 0.05). The calculated in vivo aortic valve areas were slightly, but insignificantly, greater in the modified orifice subgroup than in the standard orifice subgroup (p greater than 0.05). These in vivo data partially corroborate the in vitro findings of increased effective orifice area and internal-to- external diameter ratio for the modified orifice bioprosthesis. The hemodynamic differences between the two valve types are small, however, and the putative clinical advantages inherent in the use of the modified orifice bioprosthesis remain to be completely defined.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]