title: The Silzone effect: how to reconcile contradictory reports?
abstract: 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.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  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.
authors.affiliation: Providence Health System, Portland, OR 97225, USA. gary.grunkemeier@providence.org
authors.forename: Gary L
authors.initials: GL
authors.lastname: Grunkemeier
authors.forename: YingXing
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Wu
mesh_terms: D004696:Endocarditis / Q000209:etiology; D006350:Heart Valve Prosthesis / Q000009:adverse effects*; D006801:Humans; D015337:Multicenter Studies as Topic; D011475:Prosthesis Failure; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D012307:Risk Factors; D013923:Thromboembolism / Q000209:etiology