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 Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Martinell, J. Articles by Rabago, G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Martinell, J. Articles by Rabago, G.

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Vol 90, 741-749, Copyright © 1985 by The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and The Western Thoracic Surgical Association

ARTICLES

Long-term comparative analysis of the Bjork-Shiley and Hancock valves implanted in 1975

J Martinell, J Fraile, V Artiz, J Moreno and G Rabago

The long-term results in all patients undergoing isolated mitral, aortic, or double mitral-aortic heart valve replacement operated upon in 1975 has been retrospectively analyzed. A total of 153 patients received the standard Bjork-Shiley (flat pyrolytic disc) mechanical prostheses and 150 patients received the noncomposite Hancock porcine xenograft. Overall operative mortality was not significantly different between groups. All patients receiving a Bjork-Shiley prosthesis, but none in the Hancock group, received long-term anticoagulant therapy. Medium and long-term actuarial survival rates (5 and 10 years postoperatively) were comparable for the two groups (88% for Bjork- Shiley and 84% for Hancock [NS] at 5 years; 86% for Bjork-Shiley and 80% for Hancock at 10 years [NS]). The incidence of systemic embolism was similar in the two groups (1.6% +/- 0.4% per patient-year for the Bjork-Shiley group and 1.3% +/- 0.3% per patient-year for the Hancock group [NS]). Also the incidence of endocarditis was similar (0.6% +/- 0.2% per patient-year for the Bjork-Shiley group and 0.8% +/- 0.3% per patient-year for the Hancock group [NS]). In the Hancock group the overall incidence of reoperations was significantly higher than in the Bjork-Shiley group (4.2% +/- 0.6% per patient-year versus 0.9% +/- 0.3% per patient-year (p = 0.001). The major cause for reoperation in the Hancock group was primary tissue failure (3% +/- 0.5% per patient- year). In the Bjork-Shiley group the major cause of reoperation was valve thrombosis (0.5% +/- 0.2% per patient-year). Therefore, accepting the fact that other bioprostheses may behave differently from the Hancock noncomposite xenograft, we currently restrict our indications for valve replacement with bioprostheses.