Key result
The Hancock II and Perimount aortic bioprostheses demonstrated equivalent long-term clinical performance, with no significant difference in unadjusted 10-year survival (59.4% vs 70.2%; P=0.07).
Why the study?
Does the Medtronic Hancock II aortic bioprosthesis improve survival or hemodynamics compared to the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Population
1659 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement in a large, contemporary, single-center cohort between…
Comparison
Medtronic Hancock II aortic bioprosthesis vs Carpentier-Edwards Perimount aortic bioprosthesis
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
up to 16 years (mean, 5.0±3.3 years)
Authors
Loading...
Equivalent survival supports either bioprosthesis for aortic replacement; leaves open whether Perimount hemodynamics affect outcomes.
Cohort (n=1,659)
No
Does the Medtronic Hancock II aortic bioprosthesis improve survival or hemodynamics compared to the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 59.4% vs 70.2%
p-value: p=0.07
The Hancock II and Perimount aortic bioprostheses provide equivalent long-term survival and left ventricular mass regression, although the Perimount is associated with better hemodynamics.
Chan et al. (2010) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve replacement (n=1,659). Hancock II aortic bioprosthesis vs. Carpentier-Edwards Perimount aortic bioprosthesis was evaluated on 10-year survival (p=0.07). The Hancock II and Perimount aortic bioprostheses demonstrated equivalent long-term clinical performance, with no significant difference in unadjusted 10-year survival (59.4% vs 70.2%; P=0.07).
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: