Key result
Björk-Shiley valves reduce mortality ~24% versus Lillehei-Kaster valves in combined aortic and mitral replacement.
Why the study?
Does the Björk-Shiley disc valve improve clinical and hemodynamic outcomes compared to the Lillehei-Kaster disc valve in patients undergoing combined aortic and mitral valve replacement?
Population
48 patients undergoing combined aortic and mitral valve replacement
Comparison
Björk-Shiley (B-S) disc valve vs Lillehei-Kaster (L-K) disc valve
Design
RCT, Randomized selection was carried out at the beginning of the operation
Follow-up
13-40 months (mean 27)
Authors
Loading...
Comparable mortality supports either valve in double replacement; extends early RCT data without establishing superiority of tilting-disc prostheses.
RCT (n=48)
Randomized at the beginning of the operation
Does the Björk-Shiley disc valve improve clinical and hemodynamic outcomes compared to the Lillehei-Kaster disc valve in patients undergoing combined aortic and mitral valve replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 16% vs 21%
In patients undergoing combined aortic and mitral valve replacement, both Björk-Shiley and Lillehei-Kaster valves provided clinical improvement, but the Lillehei-Kaster valve was associated with a significant gradient in the aortic position.
Rostad et al. (1979) conducted an RCT in Combined aortic and mitral valve disease (n=48). Björk-Shiley disc valve vs. Lillehei-Kaster disc valve was evaluated on Total mortality. Combined aortic and mitral valve replacement using the Björk-Shiley valve resulted in 16% total mortality compared to 21% with the Lillehei-Kaster valve over a mean follow-up of 27 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: