Notice: Users may be experiencing issues with displaying some pages on stanfordhealthcare.org. We are working closely with our technical teams to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.
 

Learn about the flu shot, COVID-19 vaccine, and our masking policy »

Stanford Health Care

A TRI-INSTITUTIONAL COMPARISON OF TISSUE AND MECHANICAL VALVES USING A PATIENT-ORIENTED DEFINITION OF TREATMENT FAILURE ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY Cobanoglu, A., Jamieson, W. R., Miller, D. C., McKinley, C., Grunkemeier, G. L., Floten, H. S., Miyagishima, R. T., Tyers, G. F., Shumway, N. E., Starr, A. 1987; 43 (3): 245-253

Abstract

Selection of valve type for predominant usage is obscured by limiting the analysis to prosthesis-related rather than patient-oriented failure modes. In this report, "treatment failure" is defined as a valve-related death or permanent patient disability; successful reoperations are excluded, and emboli with permanent residua are included. Results with the Starr-Edwards Silastic ball valve (Oregon) and the Hancock (Stanford) and Carpentier-Edwards (Vancouver) porcine valves are compared using this new definition of treatment failure. Evaluated according to structural failure, the mechanical valve is superior to the tissue valve, and using the Stanford definition of valve failure, it becomes so between 5 and 10 years. Using treatment failure, tissue valves are superior at 5 years; at 10 years in the aortic position, the results are comparable; and in the mitral position at 8 to 10 years, tissue valves show a continued but small advantage.

View details for Web of Science ID A1987G482000002

View details for PubMedID 3493739