title: [Comparative study of type of prosthesis on late results after double valve replacement].
abstract: This study was performed to clear the influence of combination of prostheses on late results by comparing our patients. The patients were divided into two groups. Group I patients received a mechanical valve in the aortic position and a bioprosthesis in the mitral position (n = 25): and group II, dual mechanical valves (n = 89). The duration of follow-up ranged from 0.2 to 13.5 years, with a total of 466 patient-years. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of actuarial survival or incidence of reoperations, thromboemboli, or nonstructural dysfunction. Group I, however, had a significantly greater incidence of structural valve deterioration, anticoagulant-related hemorrhage, and all valve-related morbidity and mortality when compared with group II. In conclusion, 1. combining a mechanical valve and a bioprosthesis is disadvantageous: 2. dual mechanical valves have excellent long-term results.
authors.affiliation: Second Department of Surgery, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Japan.
authors.forename: K
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Morishita
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Abe
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Kazui
authors.forename: K
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Kamata
authors.forename: K
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Nakanishi
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Komatsu
mesh_terms: D001021:Aortic Valve / Q000601:surgery; D001705:Bioprosthesis; D005260:Female; D006350:Heart Valve Prosthesis / Q000401:mortality* / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D008943:Mitral Valve / Q000601:surgery; D011379:Prognosis; D011475:Prosthesis Failure; D012086:Reoperation; D015996:Survival Rate