You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Images in cardiology
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in a patient with previous Starr-Edwards mitral valve prosthesis
  1. Mohammed Shamim Rahman,
  2. David Roy,
  3. Stephen J Brecker
  1. Department of Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery, St George's Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Mohammed Shamim Rahman, ST5 Cardiology Trainee, Cardiology Department, St George's Hospital, Blackshaw Road, Tooting, London, SW17 0QT; shamimrahman{at}doctors.net.uk

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302919

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.

    Case

    The first implantation of a Starr-Edwards valve prosthesis was in 1960.1 This valve was extremely successful and many thousands of patients benefited from it. It has been superseded by new valve designs.

    A 75-year-old woman with a Starr-Edwards valve in the mitral position inserted in 1996 for mitral stenosis developed symptomatic severe aortic stenosis in 2011. She was considered not suitable for surgical aortic valve replacement due to general frailty and the high risks of a repeat sternotomy and the decision was made for …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors MSR: prepared manuscript and images. DR: performed the procedure, edited case and images. SJB: in charge of patient care, performed procedure and final edit of manuscript. Responsible for overall manuscript as guarantor.

    • Competing interests SJB is a Proctor for Medtronic CoreValve; DR and MSR have no competing interests to declare.

    • Patient consent Obtained.

    • Ethics approval Informed written consent was obtained from the patient and is submitted with the manuscript.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.