Table 1

Effective orifice area (EOA) values obtained from literature review

Patients (n=1006)Prosthetic valve size (mm)Source
2527293133
EOA (cm2)
ATS Mechanical163 (16)0 (0)2.92.82.921
 Patients, n (%)41 (25)57 (35)65 (40)
MCRI On-X47 (5)2.12.12.122
 Patients, n (%)11 (23)14 (30)22 (47)
St Jude Mechanical385 (38)1.71.81.82.023 24
 Patients, n (%)12 (3)69 (18)132 (34)172 (45)
Carbomedics27 (3)0 (0)2.02.22.12.425 26
 Patients, n (%)3 (11)9 (33)11 (41)4 (15)
St Jude Biocor64 (6)0 (0)1.52.32.22.327
 Patients, n (%)9 (14)23 (36)18 (28)14 (22)
St Jude Epic55 (5)0 (0)1.41.51.61.528
 Patients, n (%)7 (13)11 (20)28 (51)9 (16)
Medtronic Mosaic101 (10)1.71.71.81.71.829–31 34
 Patients, n (%)4 (4)17 (17)37 (37)31 (31)12 (12)
Carpentier-Edwards Perimount164 (16)1.41.82.02.32.132–34
 Patients, n (%)11 (7)51 (31)58 (35)35 (21)9 (5)
  • Prostheses studied: ATS mechanical (ATS Medical Inc, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA); MCRI On-X (Medical Carbon Research Institute, Austin Texas, USA); Carbomedics (Sorin Biomedica, Via Crescentino, Italy); St Jude Mechanical, St Jude Epic, St Jude Biocor (St Jude Medical Inc, St Paul, Minnesota, USA); Medtronic Mosaic (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA); Carpentier-Edwards Perimount (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California, USA).