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

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map 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 Author home page(s): Gary L. Grunkemeier YingXing Wu Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Grunkemeier, G. L. Articles by Wu, Y. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Grunkemeier, G. L. Articles by Wu, Y. Related Collections Cardiac - other Valve disease

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004;25:371-375
© 2004 Elsevier Science NL

The Silzone effect: how to reconcile contradictory reports?

Providence Health System, Portland, OR, USA

Received 11 September 2003; received in revised form 3 December 2003; accepted 15 December 2003.

^* Corresponding author. Address: Providence St Vincent Hospital and Medical Center, 9205 SW Barnes Road, Suite 33, Portland, OR 97225, USA. Tel.: +1-503-216-7272; fax: +1-503-216-7274
e-mail: gary.grunkemeier{at}providence.org

Objective: To attempt to reconcile reports containing contradictory findings with the St. Jude Medical Silzone heart valve. Methods: Major leak and thromboembolism data were extracted from available Silzone valve studies. Linearized rates were used to summarize and compare the events rates among the studies. Results: The Artificial Valve Endocarditis Reduction Trial (AVERT) study reported significant higher rate of major leak and the Cardiff Embolic Risk Factor Study (CERFS) reported significant higher rate of thromboembolism with Silzone compared to non-Silzone valves. But, current updates of these studies show a diminution of these differences. Three other comparative studies reported no difference between Silzone and non-Silzone valves, and three single arm studies reported acceptable results with Silzone valves. Conclusion: The contradictory findings could be partly due to clinical and technical reasons. No new events have been reported since the original AVERT (major leak) and CERFS (mitral thromboembolism) publications.

Key Words: St. Jude Medical heart valve • Silzone heart valve • Paravalvular leak • Thromboembolism

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. Englberger, H. V. Schaff, W.R. E. Jamieson, E. D. Kennard, K. A. Im, R. Holubkov, T. P. Carrel, and for the AVERT Investigators Importance of implant technique on risk of major paravalvular leak (PVL) after St. Jude mechanical heart valve replacement: a report from the Artificial Valve Endocarditis Reduction Trial (AVERT) Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., December 1, 2005; 28(6): 838 - 843. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Vesely Heart Valve Tissue Engineering Circ. Res., October 14, 2005; 97(8): 743 - 755. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]