• B Goldman, H Scully, C Tong, R Mandell, J Butany, J Azuma, and L Schwartz.
• Toronto General Hospital, Ontario.
• Can J Cardiol. 1988 Sep 1; 4 (6): 328-32.

AbstractBetween 1979 and 1985, 552 Ionescu-Shiley valves were implanted in 511 patients. The Hancock valve was implanted in 122 patients (129 valves) between 1982 and 1983. Sixty percent of procedures were isolated aortic valve replacements. In the Ionescu series, 59% of these were 19 or 21 mm valves while only 15% of the Hancock valves were of this size. For isolated mitral valve replacement, 76% of Ionescu-Shiley valves were 25 to 27 mm, compared to 36% of the Hancock valves. Patient age, sex, prior operations, concomitant surgery (usually coronary bypass), operative mortality and late deaths were similar for both valves. A mean follow-up of 38 months was obtained for each valve population (99% complete) representing a cumulative 1497 patient-years for the Ionescu-Shiley valve and 375.4 patient-years for the Hancock valve. Actuarial survival for the former was 73 +/- 4% at 72 months, and 65 +/- 14% for Hancock valves at 60 months. The frequency of major events during follow-up (thromboembolism, anticoagulant related hemorrhage, bland perivalvular leak and prosthetic valve endocarditis) were similar, but the frequency of primary tissue valve failure was markedly different for the two valves (1.1% per patient-year for Ionescu-Shiley valves and 5.9% for the Hancock valve). The mean interval to replacement of an Ionescu mitral prosthesis was significantly shorter (23.4 months) than for replacement of an aortic prosthesis (42 months) while the mean interval to replacement of an Ionescu aortic and/or a Hancock aortic or mitral were all similar.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

21 keywords...

hide…