Download PDF
Int J Angiol 2022; 31(01): 067-069
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1720967
Case Report

The Half-Century Mark: Explant of Ball and Cage Valve after 50 Years

Stevan S. Pupovac 
1   Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Manhasset, New York
,
Elana Koss
1   Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Manhasset, New York
,
Alan R. Hartman
1   Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Manhasset, New York
,
Frank Manetta 
1   Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Manhasset, New York
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This is a case report of a 69-year-old man with chronic hemolysis and worsening diastolic heart failure, secondary to known periprosthetic leak, who underwent a reoperative mitral valve replacement 50 years following initial implantation of a Starr–Edwards ball and cage valve.

Keywords

cardiac surgery - ultrasound - resection - repair - prevention - excision - duplex


Publication History

Article published online:
05 November 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Nkomo VT, Gardin JM, Skelton TN, Gottdiener JS, Scott CG, Enriquez-Sarano M. Burden of valvular heart diseases: a population-based study. Lancet 2006; 368 (9540): 1005-1011
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Goldstone AB, Chiu P, Baiocchi M. et al. Mechanical or biologic prostheses for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement. N Engl J Med 2017; 377 (19) 1847-1857
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hammermeister K, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Grover FL, Oprian C, Rahimtoola SH. Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the veterans affairs randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36 (04) 1152-1158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Chikwe J, Chiang YP, Egorova NN, Itagaki S, Adams DH. Survival and outcomes following bioprosthetic vs mechanical mitral valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 69 years. JAMA 2015; 313 (14) 1435-1442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Gammie JS, Sheng S, Griffith BP. et al. Trends in mitral valve surgery in the United States: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. Ann Thorac Surg 2009; 87 (05) 1431-1437 , discussion 1437–1439
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Matthews AM. The development of the Starr-Edwards heart valve. Tex Heart Inst J 1998; 25 (04) 282-293
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Starr A, Grunkemeier GL. Durability of the Starr-Edwards heart valve: early decisions led to successful results. Tex Heart Inst J 2016; 43 (01) 2-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cobanoglu A, Grunkemeier GL, Aru GM, McKinley CL, Starr A. Mitral replacement: clinical experience with a ball-valve prosthesis. Twenty-five years later. Ann Surg 1985; 202 (03) 376-383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar