A 10-year comparison of explanted Hancock-II and Carpentier–Edwards supraannular bioprostheses

Abstract Background Bioprosthetic heart valves are more frequently being used in valve replacement procedures today. Although second-generation bioprosthetic valves have improved functionality over their first-generation counterparts, they still often fail due to primary tissue degeneration. Methods...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cardiovascular pathology 2007, Vol.16 (1), p.4-13
Hauptverfasser: Butany, Jagdish, Leong, Shaun W, Cunningham, Kristopher S, D'Cruz, Geoffrey, Carmichael, Khenan, Yau, Terrence M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 13
container_issue 1
container_start_page 4
container_title Cardiovascular pathology
container_volume 16
creator Butany, Jagdish
Leong, Shaun W
Cunningham, Kristopher S
D'Cruz, Geoffrey
Carmichael, Khenan
Yau, Terrence M
description Abstract Background Bioprosthetic heart valves are more frequently being used in valve replacement procedures today. Although second-generation bioprosthetic valves have improved functionality over their first-generation counterparts, they still often fail due to primary tissue degeneration. Methods This study examines two second-generation porcine valves after surgical explantation, the Hancock-II (HAN; Medtronic Heart Valve Division, Irvine, CA, USA) and the Carpentier–Edwards supraannular (CE-SAV; Baxter Healthcare Corporation, now Edwards LifeSciences, Irvine, CA, USA), with special attention to morphological/histological changes and reasons for valve failure. A total of 98 HAN and 65 CE-SAV valves were explanted and seen over a 10-year period. Results CE-SAV valves had a longer average implant duration than HAN valves (13.9±3.9 years vs. 10.0±5.1 years). Compared with HAN valves, CE-SAV valves also had a higher incidence of stent deformation (41.5% vs. 14.3%), calcification (75.4% vs. 54.1%), and pannus (100% vs. 91.8%). Conclusions The greater degenerative changes seen with CE-SAV valves over HAN valves may be due to the longer implant duration of CE-SAV valves in this series. To our knowledge, the present study is the first direct morphological comparison of these two valve models.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.carpath.2006.06.003
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68416215</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1054880706000834</els_id><sourcerecordid>68416215</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c418t-f997fe7a77f559f2eb9244a675f6d01388c722e0a32b5dccc85b6c711babe2f93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1u1DAUhS1ERX_gEUBZscvgv9jOBlSNSjtSpS4Ka-PYN6qnGTvYSWF2vANvyJPgaEZCYlPpSvbi3Hvu_Q5CbwleEUzEh-3KmjSa6WFFMRarpTB7gc6Ikm1NGBMvyx83vFYKy1N0nvMWY6w456_QKZGUKIrbM_TtsiK43oNJlY270SSfY6hiX8HPcTBhAlfdmGCjfaw3m8oEV62LLYTJQ_rz6_eV-2GSy1Wex2RMCPNQBnU-jinm6QEy5NfopDdDhjfH9wJ9_Xz1ZX1T395db9aXt7XlRE1137ayB2mk7Jum7Sl0LeXcCNn0wmHClLKSUsCG0a5x1lrVdMJKQjrTAe1bdoHeH-YW6-8z5EnvfLYwlCMgzlkLxYmgpCnC5iC0ZcecoNdj8juT9ppgvaDVW31Eqxe0einMSt-7o8Hc7cD96zqyLIJPBwGUM58KH52th2DB-QR20i76Zy0-_jfBDj54a4ZH2EPexjmFwlATnanG-n7Jd4kXiyVaxtlfVFGjtw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68416215</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A 10-year comparison of explanted Hancock-II and Carpentier–Edwards supraannular bioprostheses</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Butany, Jagdish ; Leong, Shaun W ; Cunningham, Kristopher S ; D'Cruz, Geoffrey ; Carmichael, Khenan ; Yau, Terrence M</creator><creatorcontrib>Butany, Jagdish ; Leong, Shaun W ; Cunningham, Kristopher S ; D'Cruz, Geoffrey ; Carmichael, Khenan ; Yau, Terrence M</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Background Bioprosthetic heart valves are more frequently being used in valve replacement procedures today. Although second-generation bioprosthetic valves have improved functionality over their first-generation counterparts, they still often fail due to primary tissue degeneration. Methods This study examines two second-generation porcine valves after surgical explantation, the Hancock-II (HAN; Medtronic Heart Valve Division, Irvine, CA, USA) and the Carpentier–Edwards supraannular (CE-SAV; Baxter Healthcare Corporation, now Edwards LifeSciences, Irvine, CA, USA), with special attention to morphological/histological changes and reasons for valve failure. A total of 98 HAN and 65 CE-SAV valves were explanted and seen over a 10-year period. Results CE-SAV valves had a longer average implant duration than HAN valves (13.9±3.9 years vs. 10.0±5.1 years). Compared with HAN valves, CE-SAV valves also had a higher incidence of stent deformation (41.5% vs. 14.3%), calcification (75.4% vs. 54.1%), and pannus (100% vs. 91.8%). Conclusions The greater degenerative changes seen with CE-SAV valves over HAN valves may be due to the longer implant duration of CE-SAV valves in this series. To our knowledge, the present study is the first direct morphological comparison of these two valve models.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1054-8807</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1336</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.carpath.2006.06.003</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17218209</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Animals ; Bioprosthesis ; Bioprosthetic heart valve ; Calcification ; Carpentier–Edwards ; Device Removal ; Equipment Failure Analysis ; Female ; Hancock ; Heart Valve Diseases - pathology ; Heart Valve Diseases - surgery ; Heart Valve Prosthesis ; Humans ; Incompetence ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Pannus ; Pathology ; Porcine valve ; Prosthesis Failure ; Stenosis ; Structural valve deterioration ; Swine</subject><ispartof>Cardiovascular pathology, 2007, Vol.16 (1), p.4-13</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2007 Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c418t-f997fe7a77f559f2eb9244a675f6d01388c722e0a32b5dccc85b6c711babe2f93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c418t-f997fe7a77f559f2eb9244a675f6d01388c722e0a32b5dccc85b6c711babe2f93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carpath.2006.06.003$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,4022,27922,27923,27924,45994</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17218209$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Butany, Jagdish</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leong, Shaun W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cunningham, Kristopher S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D'Cruz, Geoffrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carmichael, Khenan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yau, Terrence M</creatorcontrib><title>A 10-year comparison of explanted Hancock-II and Carpentier–Edwards supraannular bioprostheses</title><title>Cardiovascular pathology</title><addtitle>Cardiovasc Pathol</addtitle><description>Abstract Background Bioprosthetic heart valves are more frequently being used in valve replacement procedures today. Although second-generation bioprosthetic valves have improved functionality over their first-generation counterparts, they still often fail due to primary tissue degeneration. Methods This study examines two second-generation porcine valves after surgical explantation, the Hancock-II (HAN; Medtronic Heart Valve Division, Irvine, CA, USA) and the Carpentier–Edwards supraannular (CE-SAV; Baxter Healthcare Corporation, now Edwards LifeSciences, Irvine, CA, USA), with special attention to morphological/histological changes and reasons for valve failure. A total of 98 HAN and 65 CE-SAV valves were explanted and seen over a 10-year period. Results CE-SAV valves had a longer average implant duration than HAN valves (13.9±3.9 years vs. 10.0±5.1 years). Compared with HAN valves, CE-SAV valves also had a higher incidence of stent deformation (41.5% vs. 14.3%), calcification (75.4% vs. 54.1%), and pannus (100% vs. 91.8%). Conclusions The greater degenerative changes seen with CE-SAV valves over HAN valves may be due to the longer implant duration of CE-SAV valves in this series. To our knowledge, the present study is the first direct morphological comparison of these two valve models.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Bioprosthesis</subject><subject>Bioprosthetic heart valve</subject><subject>Calcification</subject><subject>Carpentier–Edwards</subject><subject>Device Removal</subject><subject>Equipment Failure Analysis</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hancock</subject><subject>Heart Valve Diseases - pathology</subject><subject>Heart Valve Diseases - surgery</subject><subject>Heart Valve Prosthesis</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Incompetence</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Pannus</subject><subject>Pathology</subject><subject>Porcine valve</subject><subject>Prosthesis Failure</subject><subject>Stenosis</subject><subject>Structural valve deterioration</subject><subject>Swine</subject><issn>1054-8807</issn><issn>1879-1336</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc1u1DAUhS1ERX_gEUBZscvgv9jOBlSNSjtSpS4Ka-PYN6qnGTvYSWF2vANvyJPgaEZCYlPpSvbi3Hvu_Q5CbwleEUzEh-3KmjSa6WFFMRarpTB7gc6Ikm1NGBMvyx83vFYKy1N0nvMWY6w456_QKZGUKIrbM_TtsiK43oNJlY270SSfY6hiX8HPcTBhAlfdmGCjfaw3m8oEV62LLYTJQ_rz6_eV-2GSy1Wex2RMCPNQBnU-jinm6QEy5NfopDdDhjfH9wJ9_Xz1ZX1T395db9aXt7XlRE1137ayB2mk7Jum7Sl0LeXcCNn0wmHClLKSUsCG0a5x1lrVdMJKQjrTAe1bdoHeH-YW6-8z5EnvfLYwlCMgzlkLxYmgpCnC5iC0ZcecoNdj8juT9ppgvaDVW31Eqxe0einMSt-7o8Hc7cD96zqyLIJPBwGUM58KH52th2DB-QR20i76Zy0-_jfBDj54a4ZH2EPexjmFwlATnanG-n7Jd4kXiyVaxtlfVFGjtw</recordid><startdate>2007</startdate><enddate>2007</enddate><creator>Butany, Jagdish</creator><creator>Leong, Shaun W</creator><creator>Cunningham, Kristopher S</creator><creator>D'Cruz, Geoffrey</creator><creator>Carmichael, Khenan</creator><creator>Yau, Terrence M</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2007</creationdate><title>A 10-year comparison of explanted Hancock-II and Carpentier–Edwards supraannular bioprostheses</title><author>Butany, Jagdish ; Leong, Shaun W ; Cunningham, Kristopher S ; D'Cruz, Geoffrey ; Carmichael, Khenan ; Yau, Terrence M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c418t-f997fe7a77f559f2eb9244a675f6d01388c722e0a32b5dccc85b6c711babe2f93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Bioprosthesis</topic><topic>Bioprosthetic heart valve</topic><topic>Calcification</topic><topic>Carpentier–Edwards</topic><topic>Device Removal</topic><topic>Equipment Failure Analysis</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hancock</topic><topic>Heart Valve Diseases - pathology</topic><topic>Heart Valve Diseases - surgery</topic><topic>Heart Valve Prosthesis</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Incompetence</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Pannus</topic><topic>Pathology</topic><topic>Porcine valve</topic><topic>Prosthesis Failure</topic><topic>Stenosis</topic><topic>Structural valve deterioration</topic><topic>Swine</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Butany, Jagdish</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leong, Shaun W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cunningham, Kristopher S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D'Cruz, Geoffrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carmichael, Khenan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yau, Terrence M</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Cardiovascular pathology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Butany, Jagdish</au><au>Leong, Shaun W</au><au>Cunningham, Kristopher S</au><au>D'Cruz, Geoffrey</au><au>Carmichael, Khenan</au><au>Yau, Terrence M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A 10-year comparison of explanted Hancock-II and Carpentier–Edwards supraannular bioprostheses</atitle><jtitle>Cardiovascular pathology</jtitle><addtitle>Cardiovasc Pathol</addtitle><date>2007</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>4</spage><epage>13</epage><pages>4-13</pages><issn>1054-8807</issn><eissn>1879-1336</eissn><abstract>Abstract Background Bioprosthetic heart valves are more frequently being used in valve replacement procedures today. Although second-generation bioprosthetic valves have improved functionality over their first-generation counterparts, they still often fail due to primary tissue degeneration. Methods This study examines two second-generation porcine valves after surgical explantation, the Hancock-II (HAN; Medtronic Heart Valve Division, Irvine, CA, USA) and the Carpentier–Edwards supraannular (CE-SAV; Baxter Healthcare Corporation, now Edwards LifeSciences, Irvine, CA, USA), with special attention to morphological/histological changes and reasons for valve failure. A total of 98 HAN and 65 CE-SAV valves were explanted and seen over a 10-year period. Results CE-SAV valves had a longer average implant duration than HAN valves (13.9±3.9 years vs. 10.0±5.1 years). Compared with HAN valves, CE-SAV valves also had a higher incidence of stent deformation (41.5% vs. 14.3%), calcification (75.4% vs. 54.1%), and pannus (100% vs. 91.8%). Conclusions The greater degenerative changes seen with CE-SAV valves over HAN valves may be due to the longer implant duration of CE-SAV valves in this series. To our knowledge, the present study is the first direct morphological comparison of these two valve models.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>17218209</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.carpath.2006.06.003</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1054-8807
ispartof Cardiovascular pathology, 2007, Vol.16 (1), p.4-13
issn 1054-8807
1879-1336
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68416215
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Animals
Bioprosthesis
Bioprosthetic heart valve
Calcification
Carpentier–Edwards
Device Removal
Equipment Failure Analysis
Female
Hancock
Heart Valve Diseases - pathology
Heart Valve Diseases - surgery
Heart Valve Prosthesis
Humans
Incompetence
Male
Middle Aged
Pannus
Pathology
Porcine valve
Prosthesis Failure
Stenosis
Structural valve deterioration
Swine
title A 10-year comparison of explanted Hancock-II and Carpentier–Edwards supraannular bioprostheses
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T13%3A27%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%2010-year%20comparison%20of%20explanted%20Hancock-II%20and%20Carpentier%E2%80%93Edwards%20supraannular%20bioprostheses&rft.jtitle=Cardiovascular%20pathology&rft.au=Butany,%20Jagdish&rft.date=2007&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=4&rft.epage=13&rft.pages=4-13&rft.issn=1054-8807&rft.eissn=1879-1336&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.carpath.2006.06.003&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68416215%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=68416215&rft_id=info:pmid/17218209&rft_els_id=S1054880706000834&rfr_iscdi=true