Comparative clinical outcomes with St. Jude Medical, Medtronic Hall and CarboMedics mechanical heart valves.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY

Whether the St. Jude Medical (SJM), Medtronic Hall (MH) or CarboMedics (CM) heart valves confer any relative benefits to patient outcome remains controversial. While numerous studies have analyzed clinical results with a single brand, and a few studies have compared two brands, there are no single-center trials comparing all three valves.

METHODS

Our experience with patients who had either a SJM, MH or CM mechanical valve in isolated aortic valve (AVR) or mitral valve (MVR) replacement was reviewed. AVR was performed in 953 patients (SJM = 394, MH = 314, CM = 245) and MVR in 591 patients (SJM = 193, MH = 264, CM = 134). Survivors were assessed annually; follow up consisted of 3336 patient-years (pt-yr) after AVR and 1693 pt-yr after MVR.

RESULTS

Preoperatively, in the AVR group, more MH patients had previous valve surgery (p = 0.001) or were in NYHA class III/IV (p = 0.03), and more CM patients had a concomitant surgical procedure (p = 0.005). The hospital mortality after AVR with SJM, MH and CM valves was 3.8, 4.7 and 5.3%, respectively (p = 0.65). In the MVR group, there were more males in the CM group (p = 0.011), more CM patients had concomitant surgery (p = 0.001), and more MH patients had previous surgery (p = 0.006). The hospital mortality after MVR with SJM, MH and CM valves was 8.3, 10.2 and 6.0%, respectively (p = 0.35). There was no late survival advantage in either the AVR or MVR group according to the valve used (p = 0.24 and p = 0.90, respectively). For the AVR group the five-year actuarial freedom from thromboembolism was: SJM 85.8 +/- 2.5%, MH 80.1 +/- 2.7% and CM 85.9 +/- 3.5% (p = 0.04), and for MVR it was: SJM 84.2 +/- 4.0%, MH 77.5 +/- 3.4% and CM 86.9 +/- 5.2% (p = 0.27). Bleeding occurred with a similar frequency in the AVR (p = 0.36) and MVR (p = 0.70) groups. No cases of structural failure were identified in this study. At follow up, among AVR patients NYHA class III/IV was present in: SJM 5%, MH 6% and CM 3% (p = 0.50), while among MVR patients this was identified in: SJM 7%, MH 10% and CM 4% (p = 0.22).

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that the SJM, MH and CM mechanical valves offer similar clinical results when used for isolated AVR or MVR. While there is a suggestion of an advantage with bileaflet valves, any differences detected may simply reflect differences in the preoperative patient variables.