Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A look at recent improvements in the durability of tissue valves

  • Current Topics Review Article
  • Published:
General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The various uses of biological valves for either aortic or mitral valve replacement have recently increased because of the growing proportion of elderly patients requiring surgery.

Results

The durability of recent xenografts has been reported to be over 90 % at 10 years after aortic or mitral valve replacement for elderly patients more than 65 years of age, and therefore the guidelines now recommend the use of bioprostheses for patients over 65 years of age. Bioprostheses are also recommended for valve replacement of the right side of the heart by several authors; however, no clear guidelines are available. Trans-catheter aortic valve replacement and percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation are promising procedures for high-risk patients, although evaluation of the long-term durability of these valves is mandatory.

Conclusions

This article will review the development of the tissue valve for valve surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, De Leon AC Jr, Faxon DP, Freed MD, et al. Focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease): endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation 2008;118:e523–661.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kuwano H, Amano J, Yokomise H. Thoracic and cardiovascular surgery in Japan during 2010: annual report by The Japanese Association for Thoracic Surgery. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;60:680–708.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Yasui H, Osada H, Ando N, Koyanagi H. Thoracic and cardiovascular surgery in Japan during 1996: annual report by the Japanese Association for Thoracic Surgery. Committee of science. Jpn J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1998;46:406–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Revuelta JM, Alonso C, Cagigas JC, Lequerica MA, Gaite L, Herrera S, et al. Long-term evaluation of the Ionescu-Shiley pericardial xenograft bioprosthesis in the aortic position. J Card Surg. 1988;3:391–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cohn LH, Collins JJ Jr, DiSesa VJ, Couper GS, Peigh PS, Kowalker W, et al. Fifteen-year experience with 1678 Hancock porcine bioprosthetic heart valve replacements. Ann Surg. 1989;210:435–42. (discussion 42–3).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kirali K, Guler M, Tuncer A, Daglar B, Ipek G, Isik O, et al. Fifteen-year clinical experience with the biocor porcine bioprostheses in the mitral position. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;71:811–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Jamieson WR, Burr LH, Miyagishima RT, Germann E, Macnab JS, Stanford E, et al. Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular aortic porcine bioprosthesis: clinical performance over 20 years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;130:994–1000.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Borger MA, Ivanov J, Armstrong S, Christie-Hrybinsky D, Feindel CM, David TE. Twenty-year results of the Hancock II bioprosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis. 2006;15:49–55. (discussion-6).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rizzoli G, Mirone S, Ius P, Polesel E, Bottio T, Salvador L, et al. Fifteen-year results with the Hancock II valve: a multicenter experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;132:602–9. 9 e1-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Eichinger WB, Hettich IM, Ruzicka DJ, Holper K, Schricker C, Bleiziffer S, et al. Twenty-year experience with the St. Jude medical Biocor bioprosthesis in the aortic position. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;86:1204–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jamieson WR, Gudas VM, Burr LH, Janusz MT, Fradet GJ, Ling H, et al. Mitral valve disease: if the mitral valve is not reparable/failed repair, is bioprosthesis suitable for replacement? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009;35:104–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Myken PS, Bech-Hansen O. A 20-year experience of 1712 patients with the Biocor porcine bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:76–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chan V, Kulik A, Tran A, Hendry P, Masters R, Mesana TG, et al. Long-term clinical and hemodynamic performance of the Hancock II versus the Perimount aortic bioprostheses. Circ. 2010;122:S10–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Riess FC, Cramer E, Hansen L, Schiffelers S, Wahl G, Wallrath J, et al. Clinical results of the Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis up to 13 years. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010;37:145–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jamieson WR, Lewis CT, Sakwa MP, Cooley DA, Kshettry VR, Jones KW, et al. St. Jude Medical Epic porcine bioprosthesis: results of the regulatory evaluation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;141:1449–54. e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jamieson WR, Riess FC, Raudkivi PJ, Metras J, Busse EF, Goldstein J, et al. Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis: assessment of 12-year performance. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:302–7. e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Celiento M, Ravenni G, Milano AD, Pratali S, Scioti G, Nardi C, et al. Aortic valve replacement with the Medtronic Mosaic bioprosthesis: a 13-year follow-up. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93:510–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ruggieri VG, Flecher E, Anselmi A, Lelong B, Corbineau H, Verhoye JP, et al. Long-Term Results of the Carpentier-Edwards Supraannular Aortic Valve Prosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;94:1191–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ayegnon KG, Aupart M, Bourguignon T, Mirza A, May MA, Marchand M. A 25-year experience with Carpentier-Edwards Perimount in the mitral position. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 2011;19:14–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dellgren G, David TE, Raanani E, Armstrong S, Ivanov J, Rakowski H. Late hemodynamic and clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;124:146–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jamieson WR, Germann E, Aupart MR, Neville PH, Marchand MA, Fradet GJ. 15-year comparison of supra-annular porcine and PERIMOUNT aortic bioprostheses. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 2006;14:200–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Marchand MA, Aupart MR, Norton R, Goldsmith IR, Pelletier LC, Pellerin M, et al. Fifteen-year experience with the mitral Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;71:S236–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Minami K, Zittermann A, Schulte-Eistrup S, Koertke H, Korfer R. Mitroflow synergy prostheses for aortic valve replacement: 19 years experience with 1,516 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;80:1699–705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yankah CA, Pasic M, Musci M, Stein J, Detschades C, Siniawski H, et al. Aortic valve replacement with the Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis: durability results up to 21 years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;136:688–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wheatley DJ, Fisher J, Reece IJ, Spyt T, Breeze P. Primary tissue failure in pericardial heart valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1987;94:367–74.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Bortolotti U, Milano A, Mazzucco A, Guerra F, Valente M, Thiene G, et al. The Hancock pericardial xenograft: incidence of early mechanical failures at a medium-term follow-up. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1988;2:458–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bortolotti U, Milano A, Guerra F, Mazzucco A, Mossuto E, Thiene G, et al. Failure of Hancock pericardial xenografts: is prophylactic bioprosthetic replacement justified? Ann Thorac Surg. 1991;51:430–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Gabbay S, Bortolotti U, Wasserman F, Tindel N, Factor SM, Frater RW. Long-term follow-up of the Ionescu-Shiley mitral pericardial xenograft. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1984;88:758–63.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Ionescu MI, Tandon AP, Chidambaram M, Yakirevich VS, Silverton NP. Durability of the pericardial valve. Eur Heart J. 1984;5 Suppl D:101–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Gallo I, Nistal F, Revuelta JM, Garcia-Satue E, Artinano E, Duran CG. Incidence of primary tissue valve failure with the Ionescu-Shiley pericardial valve. Preliminary results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1985;90:278–80.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Jamieson WR, Janusz MT, MacNab J, Henderson C. Hemodynamic comparison of second- and third-generation stented bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;71:S282–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. David TE, Pollick C, Bos J. Aortic valve replacement with stentless porcine aortic bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1990;99:113–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Elkins RC, Thompson DM, Lane MM, Elkins CC, Peyton MD. Ross operation: 16-year experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;136(623–30):e5.

    Google Scholar 

  34. de Kerchove L, Rubay J, Pasquet A, Poncelet A, Ovaert C, Pirotte M, et al. Ross operation in the adult: long-term outcomes after root replacement and inclusion techniques. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;87:95–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. David TE, Omran A, Ivanov J, Armstrong S, de Sa MP, Sonnenberg B, et al. Dilation of the pulmonary autograft after the Ross procedure. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;119:210–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Brown JW, Fehrenbacher JW, Ruzmetov M, Shahriari A, Miller J, Turrentine MW. Ross root dilation in adult patients: is preoperative aortic insufficiency associated with increased late autograft reoperation? Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92:74–81 (discussion).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ross DN. Homograft replacement of the aortic valve. Lancet. 1962;2:487.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Ali A, Abu-Omar Y, Patel A, Sheikh AY, Ali Z, Saeed A, et al. Propensity analysis of survival after subcoronary or root replacement techniques for homograft aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:334–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Vogt F, Kowert A, Beiras-Fernandez A, Oberhoffer M, Kaczmarek I, Reichart B, et al. Pulmonary homografts for aortic valve replacement: long-term comparison with aortic grafts. Heart Surg Forum. 2011;14:E237–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Bortolotti U, Milano A, Thiene G, Guerra F, Mazzucco A, Valente M, et al. Early mechanical failures of the Hancock pericardial xenograft. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1987;94:200–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Thiene G, Bortolotti U, Valente M, Milano A, Calabrese F, Talenti E, et al. Mode of failure of the Hancock pericardial valve xenograft. Am J Cardiol. 1989;63:129–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Gabbay S, Bortolotti U, Wasserman F, Factor S, Strom J, Frater RW. Fatigue-induced failure of the Ionescu-Shiley pericardial xenograft in the mitral position. In vivo and in vitro correlation and a proposed classification. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1984;87:836–44.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Goldman B, Scully H, Tong C, Mandell R, Butany J, Azuma J, et al. Clinical results of pericardial xenograft valves: the Ionescu-Shiley and Hancock valves. Can J Cardiol. 1988;4:328–32.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Wells SM, Sacks MS. Effects of fixation pressure on the biaxial mechanical behavior of porcine bioprosthetic heart valves with long-term cyclic loading. Biomaterials. 2002;23:2389–99.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Vesely I. Analysis of the medtronic intact bioprosthetic valve. Effects of “zero-pressure” fixation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1991;101:90–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Cohn LH, Collins JJ Jr, Rizzo RJ, Adams DH, Couper GS, Aranki SF. Twenty-year follow-up of the Hancock modified orifice porcine aortic valve. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66:S30–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Said SM, Ashikhmina E, Greason KL, Suri RM, Park SJ, Daly RC, et al. Do pericardial bioprostheses improve outcome of elderly patients undergoing aortic valve replacement? Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93:1868–74. (discussion 74–5).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. David TE, Bos J, Rakowski H. Aortic valve replacement with the Toronto SPV bioprosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis. 1992;1:244–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. David TE, Puschmann R, Ivanov J, Bos J, Armstrong S, Feindel CM, et al. Aortic valve replacement with stentless and stented porcine valves: a case-match study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1998;116:236–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. El-Hamamsy I, Clark L, Stevens LM, Sarang Z, Melina G, Takkenberg JJ, et al. Late outcomes following freestyle versus homograft aortic root replacement: results from a prospective randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:368–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Ennker JA, Ennker IC, Albert AA, Rosendahl UP, Bauer S, Florath I. The Freestyle stentless bioprosthesis in more than 1000 patients: a single-center experience over 10 years. J Card Surg. 2009;24:41–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Oosterlinck W, Meuris B, Herregods MC, Vandeplas A, Daenen W, Flameng W, et al. Long-term results with a stentless porcine aortic valve: the Edwards PRIMA model 2500. J Heart Valve Dis. 2009;18:198–206.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Auriemma S, D’Onofrio A, Brunelli M, Magagna P, Paccanaro M, Rulfo F, et al. Long-term results of aortic valve replacement with Edwards Prima Plus stentless bioprosthesis: eleven years’ follow up. J Heart Valve Dis. 2006;15:691–5 (discussion 5).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. O’Brien MF, Gardner MA, Garlick B, Jalali H, Gordon JA, Whitehouse SL, et al. CryoLife-O’Brien stentless valve: 10-year results of 402 implants. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79:757–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Desai ND, McCarthy F, Moser W, Szeto WY, Zeeshan A, Brown D, et al. Durability of porcine bioroots in younger patients with aortic root pathology: a propensity-matched comparison with composite mechanical roots. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92:2054–60 (discussion 60-1).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Cohen G, Zagorski B, Christakis GT, Joyner CD, Vincent J, Sever J, et al. Are stentless valves hemodynamically superior to stented valves? Long-term follow-up of a randomized trial comparing Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve with the Toronto stentless porcine valve. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;139:848–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ali A, Halstead JC, Cafferty F, Sharples L, Rose F, Lee E, et al. Early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes after stented and stentless aortic valve replacement: results from a randomized controlled trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;83:2162–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Ali A, Halstead JC, Cafferty F, Sharples L, Rose F, Coulden R, et al. Are stentless valves superior to modern stented valves? A prospective randomized trial. Circulation. 2006;114:I535–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H, Bash A, Borenstein N, Tron C, Bauer F, et al. Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: first human case description. Circulation. 2002;106:3006–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Vassiliades TA Jr, Block PC, Cohn LH, Adams DH, Borer JS, Feldman T, et al. The clinical development of percutaneous heart valve technology. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;129:970–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Vassiliades TA Jr, Block PC, Cohn LH, Adams DH, Borer JS, Feldman T, et al. The clinical development of percutaneous heart valve technology: a position statement of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI). Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79:1812–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Walther T, Kasimir MT, Doss M, Schuler G, Simon P, Schachinger V, et al. One-year interim follow-up results of the TRAVERCE trial: the initial feasibility study for trans-apical aortic-valve implantation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;39:532–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Chan KM, Rahman-Haley S, Mittal TK, Gavino JA, Dreyfus GD. Truly stentless autologous pericardial aortic valve replacement: an alternative to standard aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;141:276–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Ozaki S, Kawase I, Yamashita H, Uchida S, Nozawa Y, Matsuyama T, et al. Aortic valve reconstruction using self-developed aortic valve plasty system in aortic valve disease. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2011;12:550–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Duran CM, Gometza B, Kumar N, Gallo R, Martin-Duran R. Aortic valve replacement with freehand autologous pericardium. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1995;110:511–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Alsoufi B, Al-Shahid M, Manlhiot C, Al-Amri M, McCrindle BW, Fadel B, et al. Mitral valve replacement with the Quattro stentless pericardial bioprosthesis: mid-term clinical and echocardiographic follow up. J Heart Valve Dis. 2010;19:304–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Mohr FW, Lehmann S, Falk V, Metz S, Walther C, Doll N, et al. Clinical experience with stentless mitral valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79:772–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Kawachi Y, Masuda M, Tominaga R, Tokunaga K. Comparative study between St. Jude Medical and bioprosthetic valves in the right side of the heart. Jpn Circ J. 1991;55:553–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Van Nooten GJ, Caes FL, Francois KJ, Taeymans Y, Primo G, Wellens F, et al. The valve choice in tricuspid valve replacement: 25 years of experience. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1995;9:441–6. (discussion 6–7).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Dalrymple-Hay MJ, Leung Y, Ohri SK, Haw MP, Ross JK, Livesey SA, et al. Tricuspid valve replacement: bioprostheses are preferable. J Heart Valve Dis. 1999;8:644–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Hwang HY, Kim KH, Kim KB, Ahn H. Mechanical tricuspid valve replacement is not superior in patients younger than 65 years who need long-term anticoagulation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93:1154–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Ratnatunga CP, Edwards MB, Dore CJ, Taylor KM. Tricuspid valve replacement: UK Heart Valve Registry mid-term results comparing mechanical and biological prostheses. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66:1940–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Chang BC, Lim SH, Yi G, Hong YS, Lee S, Yoo KJ, et al. Long-term clinical results of tricuspid valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;81:1317–23. (discussion 23–4).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Garatti A, Nano G, Bruschi G, Canziani A, Colombo T, Frigiola A, et al. Twenty-five year outcomes of tricuspid valve replacement comparing mechanical and biologic prostheses. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93:1146–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Kawachi Y, Tominaga R, Hisahara M, Nakashima A, Yasui H, Tokunaga K. Excellent durability of the Hancock porcine bioprosthesis in the tricuspid position. A sixteen-year follow-up study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1992;104:1561–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Kuwaki K, Komatsu K, Morishita K, Tsukamoto M, Abe T. Long-term results of porcine bioprostheses in the tricuspid position. Surg Today. 1998;28:599–603.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Nakano K, Ishibashi-Ueda H, Kobayashi J, Sasako Y, Yagihara T. Tricuspid valve replacement with bioprostheses: long-term results and causes of valve dysfunction. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;71:105–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Stulak JM, Dearani JA, Burkhart HM, Connolly HM, Warnes CA, Suri RM, et al. The increasing use of mechanical pulmonary valve replacement over a 40-year period. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;90:2009–14. (discussion 14–5).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Balaguer JM, Byrne JG, Cohn LH. Orthotopic pulmonic valve replacement with a pulmonary homograft as an interposition graft. J Card Surg. 1996;11:417–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Eyskens B, Reybrouck T, Bogaert J, Dymarkowsky S, Daenen W, Dumoulin M, et al. Homograft insertion for pulmonary regurgitation after repair of tetralogy of fallot improves cardiorespiratory exercise performance. Am J Cardiol. 2000;85:221–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Oosterhof T, Meijboom FJ, Vliegen HW, Hazekamp MG, Zwinderman AH, Bouma BJ, et al. Long-term follow-up of homograft function after pulmonary valve replacement in patients with tetralogy of Fallot. Eur Heart J. 2006;27:1478–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Vohra HA, Whistance RN, Baliulis G, Janusauskas V, Kaarne M, Veldtman GR, et al. Midterm evaluation of biological prosthetic valves in the pulmonary position of grown-up patients. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;60:205–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Shiokawa Y, Sonoda H, Tanoue Y, Nishida T, Nakashima A, Tominaga R. Pulmonary valve replacement long after repair of tetralogy of Fallot. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;60:341–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Lee C, Park CS, Lee CH, Kwak JG, Kim SJ, Shim WS, et al. Durability of bioprosthetic valves in the pulmonary position: long-term follow-up of 181 implants in patients with congenital heart disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:351–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Miyazaki A, Yamamoto M, Sakaguchi H, Tsukano S, Kagisaki K, Suyama K, et al. Pulmonary valve replacement in adult patients with a severely dilated right ventricle and refractory arrhythmias after repair of tetralogy of fallot. Circ J. 2009;73:2135–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. George I, Shah JN, Bacchetta M, Stewart A. Stentless bioprosthesis in a valved conduit: implications for pulmonary reconstruction. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88:2022–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Hawkins JA, Sower CT, Lambert LM, Kouretas PC, Burch PT, Kaza AK, et al. Stentless porcine valves in the right ventricular outflow tract: improved durability? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009;35:600–4. (discussion 4–5).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Guccione P, Milanesi O, Hijazi ZM, Pongiglione G. Transcatheter pulmonary valve implantation in native pulmonary outflow tract using the Edwards SAPIEN transcatheter heart valve. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;41:1192–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Eicken A, Ewert P, Hager A, Peters B, Fratz S, Kuehne T, et al. Percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation: two-centre experience with more than 100 patients. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:1260–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Khambadkone S, Coats L, Taylor A, Boudjemline Y, Derrick G, Tsang V, et al. Percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation in humans: results in 59 consecutive patients. Circulation 2005;112:1189–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Chen PC, Sager MS, Zurakowski D, Pigula FA, Baird CW, Mayer JE Jr, et al. Younger age and valve oversizing are predictors of structural valve deterioration after pulmonary valve replacement in patients with tetralogy of Fallot. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;143:352–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Batlivala SP, Emani S, Mayer JE, McElhinney DB. Pulmonary valve replacement function in adolescents: a comparison of bioprosthetic valves and homograft conduits. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93:2007–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Zubairi R, Malik S, Jaquiss RD, Imamura M, Gossett J, Morrow WR. Risk factors for prosthesis failure in pulmonary valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91:561–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Mr. Brian Quinn for reviewing this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Kyushu University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan

    Takahiro Nishida & Ryuji Tominaga

Authors
  1. Takahiro Nishida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ryuji Tominaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takahiro Nishida.

Additional information

The review was submitted at the invitation of the editorial committee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nishida, T., Tominaga, R. A look at recent improvements in the durability of tissue valves. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 61, 182–190 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11748-013-0202-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11748-013-0202-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation