Key result
Porcine tissue valves provide similar clinical improvement and actuarial survival rates compared to mechanical prostheses, supporting their use when anticoagulation risk is high.
Why the study?
Does porcine bioprosthetic heart-valve replacement provide similar clinical improvement and survival compared to mechanical prostheses in patients undergoing heart-valve replacement?
Does porcine bioprosthetic heart-valve replacement provide similar clinical improvement and survival compared to mechanical prostheses in patients undergoing heart-valve replacement?
This editorial supports the conclusion that porcine bioprosthetic valves offer similar survival and clinical improvement to mechanical valves, and should be considered when the risk of anticoagulation is high.
This issue of the Journal contains a detailed review by Cohn et al. of a group of patients who underwent porcine bioprosthetic heart-valve replacement. Is the authors' final sentence ("Even with the uncertainty of long-term durability, if the risk of anticoagulation in an individual patient is high, tissue valves should be used.") supported by their data and by that in the literature?There is general agreement with their conclusions that the clinical improvement and actuarial survival rates of patients receiving porcine tissue valves (bioprostheses) are similar to those of patients receiving the available mechanical forms of prosthesis.1 , 2 Thromboembolism in the . . .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
John W. Kirklin (1981) conducted an editorial in Cardiac valve replacement. Porcine bioprosthetic heart-valve replacement vs. Mechanical forms of prosthesis was evaluated on Clinical improvement and actuarial survival rates. Porcine tissue valves provide similar clinical improvement and actuarial survival rates compared to mechanical prostheses, supporting their use when anticoagulation risk is high.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: