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 Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Prasongsukarn, K. Articles by Lichtenstein, S. V Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Prasongsukarn, K. Articles by Lichtenstein, S. V

Aortic and Mitral Prosthetic Valve Replacement in Age Groups 61–65 & 66–70 Years

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

For reprint information contact: WR Eric Jamieson, MD Tel: 1 604 806 8383 Fax: 1 604 806 8384 Email: wrej{at}interchange.ubc.ca, 486 Burrard Bldg, St. Paul’s Hospital, 1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, Canada V6Z 1Y6.

Prosthesis choice for aortic and mitral valve replacements in patients aged 61–70 years is difficult. We evaluated prostheses in age groups 61–65 and 66–70 years. Freedom from major thromboembolism and hemorrhage was greater for bioprostheses than mechanical prostheses in both age groups after aortic valve replacement, but only in the younger age group after mitral valve replacement. Freedom from valve-related re-operation was greater after mitral valve replacement with mechanical prostheses in both age groups, but no difference after aortic valve replacement. Valve type was predictive of major thromboembolism and hemorrhage, except in older patients undergoing mitral valve replacement. Bioprostheses are favored for aortic valve replacement in both age groups, but the risk of re-operation with a bioprosthesis in the mitral position in patients aged 61–65 years favors a mechanical prosthesis. Prosthesis choice is less definite in those aged 66–70 years.