Is MAMOOJR a member here? I couldn't find a member with that name.. . . 2. MAMOOJR had her 33 year old Kay disc valve replaced because although it was working fine she had to have surgery done for other reasons and CC decided to replace the valve in favor of a newer one.
She was at one time. There used to be a MOO and MAMOOJR.Some posts are missing again.
Is MAMOOJR a member here? I couldn't find a member with that name.
Thats the key to meaningful stats on valve longevity.So key in on the explantation results, to get useful stats. Recipient survivorship length can be useful information, but age is an overwhelming factor in it. To make more sense of post-implant lifespan, there is often also an accounting of those who met a "valve-related" demise.
Thats the key to meaningful stats on valve longevity.
I tend to agree on the 30 year valve life, this is longer than the adult life of the donor animal, so nature hasn't designed it to last that long.[/QUOTE
Pericardial Bovine valves aren't actual animal valves, they are man made using the treated pericardial sac tissue. And tissue valves that are actual valves from animals are also treated, unlike the valve still in an animal or human, so I don't think the natural life span of the animal they come from has much to do with how long they will or won't last.
I think the most important results are these:Background: This study examined the long-term durability of the Hancock II bioprosthesis (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) in the aortic position.
Methods: From 1982 to 2004, 1134 patients underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Hancock II bioprosthesis and were prospectively monitored. Mean patient age was 67 ± 11 years; 202 patients were younger than 60, 402 were 60 to 70, and 526 were older than 70. Median follow-up was 12.2 years and 99.2% complete. Valve function was assessed in 94% of patients. Freedom from adverse events was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method.
Results: Survival at 20 and 25 years was 19.2% ± 2% and 6.7% ± 2.8%, respectively, with only 34 and 3 patients at risk. Survival at 20 years was 54.9% ± 6.4% in patients younger than 60 years, 22.7% ± 3.3% in those 60 to 70, and 2.4% ± 1.9% in those older than 70 (p = 0.01). Structural valve deterioration developed in 67 patients aged younger than 60, in 18 patients aged 60 to 70, and in 2 patients older than 70. The freedom from structural valve deterioration at 20 years was 63.4% ± 4.2% in the entire cohort, 29.2% ± 5.7% in patients younger than 60 years, 85.2% ± 3.7% in patients aged 60 to 70, and 99.8% ± 0.2% in patients older than 70 (truncated at 18 years). Repeat AVR was performed in 104 patients (74 for structural valve failure, 16 for endocarditis, and 14 for other reasons). At 20 years, the overall freedom from AVR was 65.1% ± 4% for any reason, 29.8% ± 5.4% in patients younger than 60 years, 86.8% ± 3.3% in patients 60 to 70, and 98.3% ± 0.6% in patients older than 70.
Conclusions: Hancock II bioprosthesis is a very durable valve in patients 60 years and older and is probably the gold standard of bioprosthetic valve durability in this patient population.