Managing mechanical valves with reduced anticoagulation

References

• Heart disease and stroke statistics – 2007 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation115, 69–171 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braunwald N, Cooper T, Morrow A. Complete replacement of the mitral valve. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.40, 1 (1960).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harken DE, Soroff HS, Taylor WJ, Lefemine AA, Gupta SK, Lunzer S. Partial and complete prosthesis in aortic insufficiency. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.40, 744–762 (1960).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bottio T, Rizzoli G, Caprili L et al. Biological versus mechanical aortic prosthesis? A nineteen-year comparison in a propensity-matched population.J. Heart Valve Dis.14, 493–500 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kimose HH, Lund O, Ljungstrom B. Isolated mitral valve replacement with Carpentier–Edwards bioprosthesis: independent risk factors for long-term survival and prosthesis failure.Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.37(3), 135–142 (1989).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antunes MJ, Vanderdonck KM, Sussman MJ. Mechanical valve replacement in children and teenagers. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.3(3), 222–228 (1989).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kobayashi Y, Eishi K, Nagata S et al. Choice of replacement valve in the elderly. J. Heart Valve. Dis.6(4), 404–409 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Florath I, Albert A, Rosendahl U et al. Mid term outcome and quality of life after aortic valve replacement in elderly people: mechanical versus stentless biological valves. Heart91(8), 1023–1029 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gott VL, Alejo DE, Cameron DE. Mechanical heart valves: 50 years of evolution. Ann. Thorac. Surg.76(6), S2230–S2239 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Nooten GJ, Van Belleghem Y, Caes F et al. Lower-intensity anticoagulation for mechanical heart valves: a new concept with the ATS bileaflet aortic valve. J. Heart Valve. Dis.12(4), 495–501 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Koertke H, Minami K, Boethig D et al. INR self-management permits lower anticoagulation levels after mechanical heart valve replacement. Circulation108(Suppl. 1), II75–II78 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McNicholas KW, Ivey TD, Metras J et al. North American multicenter experience with the On-X prosthetic heart valve. J. Heart Valve. Dis.15(1), 73–78 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhou XM, Zhuang W, Hu JG et al. Low-dose anticoagulation in Chinese patients with mechanical heart valves. Asian Cardiovasc. Thorac. Ann.13(4), 341–344 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kulik A, Rubens FD, Wells PS et al. Early postoperative anticoagulation after mechanical valve replacement: a systematic review. Ann. Thorac. Surg.81(2), 770–781, (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gudbjartsson T, Aranki S, Cohn LH Jr. Mechanical/bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement. In: Cardiac Surgery in the Adult (2nd Edition). Cohn LH Jr, Edmunds LH (Eds). McGraw-Hill, NY, USA, 963 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Starr A, Edwards M. Mitral replacement: clinical experience with a ball-valve prothesis. Ann. Thorac. Surg.154, 726 (1961).
   Google Scholar
• Matthews AM. The development of the Starr-Edwards heart valve. Tex. Heart Inst. J.25, 282–293, (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cobonaglu A, Grunkemeier GL, Aru GG et al. Mitral replacement: clinical experience with a ball-valve prosthesis: twenty five years later. Ann. Surg.202, 376 (1985).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bjork VO, Linblom D. The Monostrut Bjork-Shiley heart valve. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.6, 1142 (1985).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ericsson A, Lindblom D, Semb G et al. Strut fracture with Bjork-Shiley 70 degrees convexo-concave valve: an international multi-institutional follow-up study. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.6, 339 (1992).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Butchart EG, Li HH, Payne N et al. Twenty years’ experience with the Medtronic Hall valve. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.121(6), 1090–1100 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kleine P, Hasenkam MJ, Nygaard H et al. Tilting disc versus bileaflet aortic valve substitutes: intraoperative and postoperative hemodynamic performance in humans. J. Heart Valve Dis.9(2), 308–311 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Masters RG, Helou J, Pipe AL, Keon WJ. Comparative clinical outcomes with St Jude Medical, Medtronic Hall and CarboMedics mechanical heart valves. J. Heart Valve Dis.10(3), 403–409 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ely JL, Emken MR, Accuntius JA et al. Pure pyrolytic carbon: preparation and properties of a new material, On-X carbon for mechanical heart valve prostheses. J. Heart Valve. Dis.7(6), 626–632 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammermeister KE, Sethi GK, Henderson WG et al. A comparison of outcomes in men 11 years after heart-valve replacement with a mechanical valve or bioprosthesis. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study on Valvular Heart Disease. N. Engl. J. Med.328(18), 1289–1296 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K et al. ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing Committee to Revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease) developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.48(3), e1–e148 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Kanu C et al. ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing committee to revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease): developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists: endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation114(5), e84–e231 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moinuddeen K, Quin J, Shaw R et al. Anticoagulation is unnecessary after biological aortic valve replacement.Circulation98(19 Suppl.), II95–II98 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber KC, Gersh BJ, Bailey KR et al. Variability in anticoagulation control predicts thromboembolism after mechanical cardiac valve replacement: a 23-year population-based study.Mayo Clin. Proc.72(12), 1103–1110 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massel D, Little SH. Risks and benefits of adding anti-platelet therapy to warfarin among patients with prosthetic heart valves: a meta-analysis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.37(2), 569–578 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Migliaccio-Walle K, Klittich W, Banks J et al. Bileaflet valve replacement: complications and costs. Adv. Ther.13(1), 1–9 (1996).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cannegieter SC, Rosendaal FR, Briet E. Thromboembolic and bleeding complications in patients with mechanical heart valve prostheses. Circulation89(2), 635–641 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heras M, Chesebro JH, Fuster V et al. High risk of thromboemboli early after bioprosthetic cardiac valve replacement. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.25(5), 1111–1119 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grunkemeier GL,Wu Y. “Our complication rates are lower than theirs”: statistical critique of heart valve comparisons. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.125(2), 290–300 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lim KH, Caputo M, Ascione R et al. Prospective randomized comparison of CarboMedics and St Jude Medical bileaflet mechanical heart valve prostheses: an interim report. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.123(1), 21–32 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikaeloff P, Jegaden O, Ferrini M et al. Prospective randomized study of St Jude Medical versus Bjork-Shiley or Starr-Edwards 6120 valve prostheses in the mitral position. Three hundred and fifty-seven patients operated on from 1979 to December 1983. J. Cardiovasc. Surg. (Torino)30(6), 966–975 (1989).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huth C, Friedl A, Rost A. Intensity of oral anticoagulation after implantation of St Jude Medical aortic prosthesis: analusis of the GELIA Database (GELIA 4). Eur. Heart J. Suppl.3(Suppl. Q), Q33–Q38 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Garcia-Rinaldi R. Clopidogrel-aspirin inhibit the thrombogenicity of St Jude mechanical aortic prostheses. Ann. Thorac. Surg.81(2), 787 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kortke H, Korfer R. International normalized ratio self-management after mechanical heart valve replacement: is an early start advantageous? Ann. Thorac. Surg.72(1), 44–48 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jamieson WR, Munro AI, Miyagishima RT et al. Multiple mechanical valve replacement surgery comparison of St Jude Medical and CarboMedics prostheses. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.13(2), 151–159 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang SS, Chu SH, Tsai CH, Lin FY. Clinical use of CarboMedics and St Jude Medical valves. Artif. Organs20(12), 1299–1303 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Chang BC, Lim SH, Kim DK et al. Long-term results with St Jude Medical and CarboMedics prosthetic heart valves. J. Heart Valve Dis.10(2), 185–194 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams MA, Crause L, Van Riet S. A comparison of mechanical valve performance in a poorly anticoagulated community.J. Card. Surg.19 (5), 410–414 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Palatianos GM, Laczkovics AM, Simon P et al. Multicentered European study on safety and effectiveness of the On-X prosthetic heart valve: intermediate follow-up. Ann. Thorac. Surg.83(1), 40–46 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moidl R, Simon P, Wolner E. The On-X prosthetic heart valve at five years. Ann. Thorac. Surg.74(4), S1312–S1317 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Hirsh J, Dalen J, Guyatt G. The sixth (2000) ACCP guidelines for antithrombotic therapy for prevention and treatment of thrombosis. American College of Chest Physicians. Chest119(1 Suppl.), S1–S2 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baglin TP, Keeling DM, Watson HG. Guidelines on oral anticoagulation (warfarin): third edition – 2005 update. Br. J. Haematol.132(3), 277–285 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsuyama K, Matsumoto M, Sugita T et al. Anticoagulant therapy in Japanese patients with mechanical mitral valves. Circ. J.66(7), 668–670 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Vaughan P, Waterworth PD. An audit of anticoagulation practice among UK cardiothoracic consultant surgeons following valve replacement/repair. J. Heart Valve Dis.14(5), 576–582 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kirtane AJ, Rahman AM, Martinezclark P et al. Adherence to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for the management of anticoagulation in patients with mechanical valves undergoing elective outpatient procedures. Am. J. Cardiol.97(6), 891–893 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• CTSNet Editors VTC, Anticoagulation Therapy after Aortic Tissue Valve Replacement: Final Results. CTSNet (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Kulik A, Rubens FD, Baird D et al. Early postoperative anticoagulation after mechanical valve replacement: a Canadian survey. J. Heart Valve Dis.15(4), 581–587 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hering D, Piper C, Horstkotte D. Drug insight: an overview of current anticoagulation therapy after heart valve replacement.Nat. Clin. Pract. Cardiovasc. Med.2(8), 415–422 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Salem DN, Stein PD, Al-Ahmad A et al. Antithrombotic therapy in valvular heart disease – native and prosthetic: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy.Chest126(3 Suppl.), S457–S482 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bussey HI. An overview of anticoagulants, antiplatelet agents, and the combination in patients with mechanical heart valves.J. Heart Valve Dis.13(3), 319–324 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meschengieser SS, Fondevila CG, Frontroth J et al. Low-intensity oral anticoagulation plus low-dose aspirin versus high-intensity oral anticoagulation alone: a randomized trial in patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.113(5), 910–916 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Little SH, Massel DR. Antiplatelet and anticoagulation for patients with prosthetic heart valves. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.4, CD003464 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Stein PD. Antithrombotic therapy in valvular heart disease. Clin. Geriatr. Med.17(1), 163–172 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Altman R, Rouvier J, Gurfinkel E et al. Comparison of high-dose with low-dose aspirin in patients with mechanical heart valve replacement treated with oral anticoagulant. Circulation94(9), 2113–2116 (1996).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chesebro JH, Fuster V, Elveback LR et al. Trial of combined warfarin plus dipyridamole or aspirin therapy in prosthetic heart valve replacement: danger of aspirin compared with dipyridamole. Am. J. Cardiol.51(9), 1537–1541 (1983).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mok CK, Boey J, Wang R et al. Warfarin versus dipyridamole-aspirin and pentoxifylline-aspirin for the prevention of prosthetic heart valve thromboembolism: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Circulation72(5), 1059–1063 (1985).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCahon D, Murray ET, Jowett S et al. Patient self management of oral anticoagulation in routine care in the UK.J. Clin. Pathol. (2007) (Epub ahead of print).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McCahon D, Fitzmaurice DA, Murray ET et al. SMART: self-management of anticoagulation, a randomised trial [ISRCTN19313375]. BMJ331(7524), 1057 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Preiss M, Bernet F, Zerkowski HR. Additional information from the GELIA database: analysis of benefit from self-management of oral anticoagulation (GELIA 6). Eur. Heart J. Suppl.3(Suppl. Q), Q50–Q53 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Horstkotte D, Piper C. Improvement of oral anticoagulation therapy by INR self-management. J. Heart Valve Dis.13(3), 335–338 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Koertke H, Zittermann A, Wagner O, Koerfer R. Self-management of oral anticoagulation therapy improves long-term survival in patients with mechanical heart valve replacement. Ann. Thorac. Surg.83(1), 24–29 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Koertke H, Zittermann A, Minami K et al. Low-dose international normalized ratio self-management: a promising tool to achieve low complication rates after mechanical heart valve replacement. Ann. Thorac. Surg.79(6), 1909–1914 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Heneghan C, Alonso-Coello P, Garcia-Alamino JM, Perera R, Meats E, Glasziou, P. Self-monitoing of oral anticoagulation: a systematic reveiw and meta-analysis. Lancet367, 404–411 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siebenhofer A, Berghold A, Sawickim PT. Systematic review of studies of self-management of oral anticoagulation. Thromb. Haemost.91, 225–232 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Sola Serra O, Elorza Ricart JM. Portable coagulometers: a systematic review of the evidence of self-management of oral anticoagulant treatment. Med. Clin. (Barc.)124, 321–325 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gardiner C, Williams K, Mackie IJ et al. Can oral anticoagulation be managed using telemedicine and patient self-testing? A pilot study. Clin. Lab. Haematol.28(2), 122–125 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hentrich DP, Fritschi J, Muller PR, Wuillemin WA. INR comparison between the CoaguChek(R) S and a standard laboratory method among patients with self-management of oral anticoagulation. Thromb. Res.119(4), 489–495 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Regier DA, Sunderji R, Lynd LD et al. Cost-effectiveness of self-managed versus physician-managed oral anticoagulation therapy. CMAJ174(13), 1847–1852 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar