Key result
Hancock MO valve shows no difference in structural valve deterioration versus standard Hancock and Carpentier-Edwards valves.
Why the study?
Does the Hancock MO bioprosthesis improve durability compared to standard aortic valve bioprostheses in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Population
1,602 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement using porcine valves between 1971 and 1990, mean age 60 ±…
Comparison
Hancock modified orifice bioprosthetic valve vs Standard Hancock model 242 valve and…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
up to 15 years (10,247 patient-years)
Authors
Loading...
Equivalent durability among porcine valves supports selection by non-durability factors; Level 3 data leaves open randomized confirmation.
Cohort (n=1,602)
Does the Hancock MO bioprosthesis improve durability compared to standard aortic valve bioprostheses in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 56% vs 56%
p-value: p=0.47
There is no significant difference in long-term structural valve deterioration between the Hancock modified orifice valve and standard porcine bioprostheses, suggesting valve choice should be based on other factors.
Yun et al. (1995) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve replacement (n=1,602). Hancock modified orifice (Hancock MO) valve vs. Standard Hancock model 242 valve and Carpentier-Edwards model 2625 valve was evaluated on Actuarial freedom from structural valve deterioration (SVD) (p=0.47). Actuarial freedom from structural valve deterioration was 56% for the Hancock MO valve at 14 years, compared to 56% for the standard Hancock and 54% for the Carpentier-Edwards valves (p=0.47).