Ten to fifteen year reassessment of the performance characteristics of the Starr-Edwards Model 6120 mitral valve prosthesis.
Ten to fifteen year reassessment of the performance characteristics of the Starr-Edwards Model 6120 mitral valve prosthesis.
复制标题
对 Starr-Edwards 6120 型二尖瓣假体的性能特征进行十到十五年的重新评估。
DOI:
10.1016/s0022-5223(19)38894-4
复制
发表时间:
1983
期刊:
影响因子:
--
通讯作者:
N. Shumway
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
D. C. Miller;P. Oyer;E. Stinson;B. Reitz;S. Jamieson;W. Baumgartner;R. Mitchell;N. Shumway
The Starr-Edwards (S-E) non-cloth-covered, silicone ball prosthesis (Model 6120) has been widely used for mitral valve replacement for over 16 years. It remains a standard against which newer valves are compared, but its performance characteristics in the 10 to 15 year range have not been comprehensively documented. This investigation included 509 patients who had this prosthesis implanted; a cumulative total of 3,170 patient-years of follow-up was analyzed with specific reference to all valve-related morbidity and mortality using stringent, conservative, and comprehensive definitions. Expressed in both linearized (λ) and actuarial terms, valve-related complications occurred at the following rates: Twenty-two percent of hospital deaths and 27% of late deaths were valve-related. Overall, 46% ± 2% of patients had had a valve-related complication by 5 years, 62% ± 3% by 10 years, and fully 75% ± 4% by 14 years; however, this prosthesis was structurally sound and no cases of mechanical failure were identified. Thus, although the Starr-Edwards Model 6120 mitral prosthesis is indestructible from purely a mechanical design standpoint, this comprehensive analysis of its performance characteristics reveals markedly suboptimal overall long-term results. The valve-related complications defined and reported herein should be used for analytical comparison when follow-up of patients with newer mechanical prostheses and tissue bioprostheses reaches 10 years and beyond. In this way, investigators and clinicians alike can discern whether or not a “newer” valve substitute is really an “improved” valve and which type of valve substitute proffers the most possible net benefit to the patient in terms of overall valve-related morbidity and mortality.