Skip to main content
  • 916 Accesses

Abstract

The first clinical valve implantation was of a Starr–Edwards valve in 1960 (Table 6.1). More than 10,000 valves are now imp-lanted each year in the UK, and about 80,000 in the USA. This chapter will describe a classification of valve types, their hemodynamic and clinical assessment, the diagnosis of obstruction and of regurgitation and the management of complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Jamieson WRE. Effective current and advanced prostheses for cardiac valvular replacement and reconstructive surgery. Surgical Technology International 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gruse E, Schuler G, Bhellsfeld L et al. Percutanems aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis in high-risk patients using the second- and current third-generation self-expanding. Corevalve prosthesis: device success and 30-day clinical outcome. JACC 2007; 50:69–76.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Grunkemeier GL, Li H-H, Naftel DC, Starr A, Rahimtoola SH. Long-term performance of heart valve prostheses. Curr Probl Cardiol 2000; 25:73–156.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rahimtoola S. Choice of prosthetic heart valve for adult patients. JACC 2003; 41:893–904.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Elkayam U, Bitar F. Valvular heart disease and pregnancy: Part II Prosthetic valves. JACC 2005; 46:403–410.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Khan SS, Trento A, DeRbertis M, et al. Twenty-year comparison of tissue and mechanical valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001; 122:257–259.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Puvimanasinghe JPA, Takkenberg JJM, Edwards MB, et al. Comparison of outcomes after valve replacement with a mechanical valve or a bioprosthesis using microsimulation. Heart 2004; 90:1172–1178.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chambers J, Fraser A, Lawford P, Nihoyannopoulos P, Simpson I. Echocardiographic assessment of artificial heart valves: British Society of echocardiography position paper. British Heart J 1994; 71(Suppl 4):6–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cochran RP, Kunzelman KS. Discrepancies between labelled and actual dimensions of prosthetic valves and sizers. J Card Surg 1996; 11:318–324.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rosenhek R, Binder T, Maurer G, Baumgartner H. Normal values for Doppler echocardiographic assessment of heart valve prostheses. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 16:1116–1127.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rajani R, Mukherjee D, Chambers J. Doppler echocardiography in normally functioning replacement aortic valves: a review of 129 studies. J Heart Valve Dis 2007; 16:519–535.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Leborgne L, Renard C, Tribouilloy C. Usefulness of ECG-gated multi-detector computed tomography for the diagnosis of prosthetic valve dysfunction. Europ Heart J 2006; 2537.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Connolly HM, Miller FA, Taylor CL, Naessens JM, Seward JB, Tajik AJ. Doppler hemodynamic profiles of 82 clinically and echocardiographically normal tricuspid valve prostheses. Circulation 1993; 88:2722–2727.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Edmunds LH, Clark RE, Cohn LH, Grunkemeier GL, Miller DC, Weisel RD. Guidelines for reporting morbidity and mortality after cardiac valvular operations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1996; 112:708–711.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Teshima, H, Hayashiba N, Enomoto N, Aoyaci S, Okmon K, Uchida M. Detection of pannus by multidetector-row computed tomocremay. Ann. Thorm Sury 2003; 75:1631–1633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Vahanian A, Baumgartner H, Bax J, et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease. Europ Heart J 2007; 28:230–268.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Habib G, Tribouilloy C, Thuny F, et al. Prosthetic valve endocarditis: who will need surgery? A multicentre study of 104 cases. Heart 2005; 91:954–959.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Akowuah EF, Davies W, Oliver S, Stephens J, Riaz I, Zadik P, Cooper G. Prosthetic valve endocarditis: early and late outcome following medical or surgical treatment. Heart 2003; 89:29–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Heneghan C, Alonso-Coello P, Garcia-Alamino JM, Perera R, Meats E, Glasziou P. Self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brit Med J 2006; 367:404–411.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Butchart EG, Gohlke-Barwolf C, Antunes MJ, et al. Recommendations for the management of patients after heart valve surgery. Europ Heart J 2005; 26:2463–2471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chambers, J. (2009). Valve Substitutes. In: Henein, M.Y. (eds) Valvular Heart Disease in Clinical Practice. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-275-3_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-275-3_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84800-274-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84800-275-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics