HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by McCarthy, J. F. Articles by Wood, A. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by McCarthy, J. F. Articles by Wood, A. E.

European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Vol 10, 105-108, Copyright © 1996 by European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery

ARTICLES

Is use of the pulmonary valve allograft justified as an aortic valve substitute?

JF McCarthy, K Subbareddy, PA Dervan and AE Wood
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Mater Misericordiae Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.

Between January 1, 1990, and March 20, 1994, 56 patients had a homograft valve device placed in the aortic position. The mean age at operation was 53.3 years (range 5-77 years). Diagnosis included dominant aortic stenosis in 27 patients (48.2%) and aortic incompetence in 29 (51.8%). Thirteen patients (23.2%) had subacute bacterial endocarditis. Forty-three aortic homografts and 13 pulmonary homografts were placed. Concomitant procedures were performed in 12 patients (21.8%). The hospital mortality was 7.3% (four patients). On follow-up, three pulmonary valves have failed, two between 1 and 5 weeks post implantation. At reoperation a linear cusp fracture was found in all with no evidence of infection. All remaining patients have no, trivial, or mild, aortic regurgitation on echo and remain well. Pulmonary and aortic valves were compared for failure, P = 0.02 suggesting a significant difference between valve substitutes. In conclusion we advise caution in using pulmonary allografts in the aortic position.