The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Volume 126, Issue 1 , Pages 66-74 , July 2003

Long-term durability of the Hancock II porcine bioprosthesis

  • Giulio Rizzoli, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Cardiovascular SurgeryUniversity of Padua, Medical School of Padua, Padua, Italy
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress for reprints: Giulio Rizzoli, MD, Institute of Cardiovascular Surgery, University of Padua, Via Giustiniani, 2, Padua 35100, Italy
    • ,
  • Tomaso Bottio, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Cardiovascular SurgeryUniversity of Padua, Medical School of Padua, Padua, Italy
    • ,
  • Gaetano Thiene, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Cardiovascular Pathology, University of Padua Medical School, Padua, Italy
    • ,
  • Giuseppe Toscano, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Cardiovascular SurgeryUniversity of Padua, Medical School of Padua, Padua, Italy
    • ,
  • Dino Casarotto, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Cardiovascular SurgeryUniversity of Padua, Medical School of Padua, Padua, Italy

Received 30 August 2002 ,Revised 16 October 2002 ,Accepted 21 October 2002.

References 

  1. Carpentier A, Dubost C, Lane E, et al.  Continuing improvements in valvular bioprostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1982;83:27–42
  2. Milano A, Bortolotti U, Talenti E, et al.  Calcific degeneration as the main cause of porcine bioprosthetic valve failure. Am J Cardiol. 1984;53:1066–1070
  3. Bortolotti U, Milano A, Thiene G, Mazzucco A. Original expectations of the Hancock valve and 20 years of clinical reality. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1992;6(Suppl 1):S75–78
  4. Wright JTM, Eberhardt CE, Gibbs ML, Saul T, Gilpin CB. Hancock II—an improved bioprosthesis. In:  Chon LH,  Galluci V editor. Cardiac bioprostheses. New York: Yorke Medical Books; 1982;p. 425–444
  5. Bortolotti U, Milano A, Mazzaro E, Thiene G, Talenti E, Casarotto D. Hancock II porcine bioprosthesis (excellent durability at intermediate-term follow-up). J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;24:676–682
  6. David TE, Armstrong S, Sun Z. Clinical and hemodynamic assessment of the Hancock II bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 1992;54:661–668
  7. David TE, Armstrong S, Sun Z. The Hancock II bioprosthesis at 12 years. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66:S95–98
  8. Edmunds LHJ, Clark RE, Cohn LH, Miller DC, Weisel RD. Guidelines for reporting morbidity and mortality after cardiac valvular operations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1988;96:351–353
  9. Grunkemeier GL, Anderson RP, Miller DC, Starr A. Time related analysis of nonfatal heart valves complication (cumulative incidence (actual) vs. Kaplan-Meier (actuarial)). Circulation. 1997;96(Suppl 9):II70, 75
  10. Gaynor JJ, Feuer EJ, Tan CC, et al.  On the use of cause-specific failure and conditional failure probabilities (examples for clinical oncology). J Am Stat Assoc. 1993;88:400–409
  11. Manouguian S, Seybold-Epting W. Patch enlargement of the aortic valve ring by extending the aortic incision into the anterior mitral leaflet. New operative technique. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1979;78:402–412
  12. Bonow RO, Carabello B, de Leon AC, et al.  ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease. Executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease). J Heart Valve Dis. 1998;7:672–707
  13. Schoen FJ, Levy R, Piehler HR. Pathological considerations in replacement cardiac valves. Cardiovasc Pathol. 1992;1:29–52
  14. Burdon TA, Miller DC, Oyer PE, et al.  Durability of porcine valves at fifteen years in a representative North American population. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1992;103:238–252
  15. Jamieson WRE, Munro AI, Miyagishima RT, Allen P, Burr LH, Tyers GFO. Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine bioprostheses (clinical performances to seventeen years). Ann Thorac Surg. 1989;48:S81–82
  16. Akins CW, Carroll D, Buckley MJ, Daggett WM, Hilgenberg AD, Austen WG. Late results with Carpentier-Edwards porcine bioprostheses. Circulation. 1990;82(Suppl 4):65–74
  17. Bortolotti U, Milano A, Mossutto E, Mazzaro E, Thiene G, Casarotto D. Porcine valve durability (a comparison between Hancock Standard and Hancock II bioprostheses). Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;60:S216–220
  18. Ikonomidis JS, Ivanov J, Miller DC, Armstrong S, David TE. Improved durability with the new Hancock II bioprosthesis. [abstract] Circulation. 1999;100(Suppl):I525
  19. David TE, Ivanov J, Armstrong S, Feindel CM, Cohen G. Late results of heart valve replacement with the Hancock II bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001;121:268–277
  20. Legarra JJ, Llorens R, Catalan M, et al.  Eighteen-year follow up after Hancock II bioprosthesis insertion. J Heart Valve Dis. 1999;8:16–24
  21. Mykèn P, Bech-Hanssen O, Phipps B, Caidahl K. Fifteen years follow-up with the St. Jude Medical Biocor Porcine Bioprosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis. 2000;9:415–422
  22. Bortolotti U, Milano A, Mazzucco A, et al.  Results of reoperation for primary tissue failure of porcine bioprostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1985;90:564–569
  23. Banbury MK, Cosgrove DM, White JA, Blackstone EH, Frater RWM, Okies JE. Age and valve size effect on the long term durability of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72:753–757
  24. Jamieson WRE, Marchand MA, Pelletier CL, et al.  Structural valve deterioration in mitral replacement surgery (comparison of Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular porcine and Perimount pericardial bioprostheses). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999;118:297–305
  25. Jamieson WRE, David TE, Feindel CMS, Miyagishima RT, Germann E. Performance of the Carpentier-Edwards SAV and Hancock-II porcine bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis. 2002;11:424–430
  26. Bottio T, Rizzoli G, Gerosa G, Thiene G, Casarotto D. Mid-term follow-up in patients with Biocor porcine bioprosthesis. Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;10:238–244
  27. Butany J, Yu W, Silver MD, David TE. Morphologic findings in explanted Hancock II porcine bioprostheses. J Heart Valve Dis. 1999;8:4–15
  28. Rizzoli G, De-Perini L, Bottio T, Minutolo G, Thiene G, Casarotto D. Prosthetic replacement of the tricuspid valve (biological or mechanical?). Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66(Suppl 6):S62–67
  29. Guerra F, Bortolotti U, Thiene G, et al.  Long-term performance of the Hancock porcine bioprosthesis in the tricuspid position. A review of forty-five patients with fourteen-year follow-up. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1990;99:838–845
  30. Nakano K, Eishi K, Kosakai Y, et al.  Ten-year experience with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial xenograft in the tricuspid position. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996;111:605–612

☆ Supported by grants of “Istituto Superiore di Sanità,” and “Ministero Istruzione, Università e Ricerca,” Rome, and by “Regione Vimento,” Venice, Italy.

PII: S0022-5223(02)73618-0

doi: 10.1016/S0022-5223(02)73618-0

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Volume 126, Issue 1 , Pages 66-74 , July 2003

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution