Total amount: € 0,00
Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,632
Online ISSN 1827-191X
CARDIAC SECTION - MITRAL VALVE SURGERY
Doenst T., Borger M. A., David T. E.
Division of Cardiovascular Surgery Toronto General Hospital and University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Pericardial valve bioprostheses were introduced in early 1970s and were widely used in the 1980s. The long-term results with the Ionescu-Shiley valve, the first commercially available pericardial valve, were disappointing because of high rate cusp tears during the first decade after implantation. The enthusiasm for this type of bioprosthetic valve was further hampered by the premature failure of the Hancock pericardial valve. The long-term results of aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve, which was introduced in 1981, indicated that that valve was durable and the issue of cusp tears had been resolved by an appropriate design. This knowledge prompted surgeons to revisit the merits of pericardial valves for mitral valve replacement and several other pericardial valves are now commercially available. The largest data on long-term results are with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial mitral valve. The reported freedom from structure valve failure ranged from 69% to 85% at 10 years in patient population with mean age of 60 to 70 years. Young age is a major determinant of valve failure, which is largely due to calcification. There are also long-term data, albeit more limited on the Sorin Pericarbon and Mitroflow valves used for mitral valve replacement. This paper review the published experience with various pericardial bioprosthetic valves used for mitral valve replacement during the past 3 decades.