You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Editorial
The Edinburgh heart valve study
  1. K M Taylor
  1. Correspondence to:
    Professor KM Taylor, Cardiothoracic Surgical Unit, Second Floor, B Block, Hammersmith Hospital, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, UK:
    scarroll{at}imperial.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/heart.89.7.697

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    The durability of artificial heart valves is a key consideration, particular in an increasingly elderly population. So which type of artificial valve is preferable—mechanical or bioprosthetic?

    Durability has always been a crucial performance indicator for artificial heart valves. There is the intrinsic durability of the valve itself, as constructed by the manufacturer, but it is the durability of the implanted valve in the individual patient which is the real issue, particularly, but not solely, for the patient. Progress in the design and manufacture of artificial heart valves has arisen from information gained from pulse duplicator studies, from fatigue testing, and from animal implants—but the bottom line is durability once implanted in the patient, and the longer the follow up the better.

    The Edinburgh heart valve study of 533 patients, who had their valve implant(s) between 1975 and 1979, now reports comparative clinical outcome for mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves at 20 years.1 The present report supplements a 12 year follow up, published in 1991.2 The original study was prospective and randomised. The study design was modified in January 1977 in those patients randomised to receive a porcine bioprosthesis. Initially, the porcine valve used was the Hancock prosthesis, but, after January 1977, the Carpentier-Edwards valve was used because of its “substantial cost advantage”.

    The authors are to be congratulated over the length and completeness of follow up. Six patients were lost to follow up and the remaining survivors were followed up beyond 1 January 1988, giving a mean follow up of 20.4 years. The patient population in the study is younger than current patient demographics, …

    View Full Text