Intermediate Term Results of Isolated Mitral Valve Replacement with Glutaraldehyde-Preserved Porcine Xenograft Valve: Clinical and Hemodynamic Comparison between Hancock Valve and Angell-Shiley Valve

N/ACitations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Clinical and hemodynamic assessments were carried out for 30 cases, who underwent isolated mitral valve replacement with glutaraldehyde-preserved porcine xenograft valve. The cases were divided into two groups, according to the types of prostheses. Group H comprised 23 cases with Hancock 342 valve and group AS, 7 cases with Angell-Shiley valve. Mean (S.D.) follow-up periods were 4.0±0.7 in group H and 4.6±0.6 years in group AS. Incidence of valvular malfunction was 3.3 in group H and 9.3% per patient-year in group AS. Cumulative survival and event-free rates were calculated by actuarial method, which revealed 91 and 83% in group H and 70 and 71% in group AS at 6 years after operation. Hemodynamic assessments were carried out in 20 cases, in which complete data at rest and during exercise were obtained. Valvular function deteriorated during exercise in both groups. Parameters showing valvular function in group AS were worse than those in group H. It is concluded from this study that (1) intermediate late results are satisfactory in group H, (2) incidence of valvular malfunction is high in children and in group AS, (3) throm-boembolisms are seen even in cases with recourse to anticoagulant, (4) xenograft valves are stenotic especially in high flow state and (5) valvular function of AS valve is inferior to H valve. © 1986, Tohoku University Medical Press. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kagawa, Y., Tabayashi, K., Suzuki, Y., Ito, T., Sato, N., & Horiuchi, T. (1986). Intermediate Term Results of Isolated Mitral Valve Replacement with Glutaraldehyde-Preserved Porcine Xenograft Valve: Clinical and Hemodynamic Comparison between Hancock Valve and Angell-Shiley Valve. The Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine, 150(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1620/tjem.150.37

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free