Twenty-Five–Year Experience With the Björk-Shiley Convexoconcave Heart Valve: A Continuing Clinical Concern

Background—The first Björk-Shiley convexoconcave (BSCC) prosthetic heart valves were implanted in 1978. The 25th anniversary provided a stimulus to summarize the research data relevant to BSCC valve fracture, patient management, and current clinical options. Methods and Results—Published and unpublished data on the risks of BSCC valve fracture and replacement were compiled, and strategies for identifying candidates for prophylactic valve reoperation were summarized. By December 2003, outlet strut fractures (OSFs), often with fatal outcomes, had been reported in 633 BSCC valves (0.7% of 86 000 valves implanted). Fractures still continue to occur, but average rates of OSFs in 60° valves are now <0.1% per year. OSF risk varies markedly by valve characteristics, especially valve angle and size, with weaker effects associated with other manufacturing variables. OSF risks are mildly lower among women than men but decline sharply with advancing age. The risks of valve replacement typically greatly exceed those of OSF. By comparing individualized estimated risks of OSF versus valve replacement, guidelines have been developed to identify the small percentage of BSCC patients (mostly younger men) who would be expected to have a gain in life expectancy should reoperative surgery be performed. Conclusions—Twenty-five years after the initial BSCC valve implants, fractures continue to occur. Continued monitoring of BSCC patients is needed to track and quantify risks and enable periodic updating of guidelines for patients and their physicians.

[1]  E. Steyerberg,et al.  Decision Guidelines for Prophylactic Replacement of Björk-Shiley Convexo-Concave Heart Valves: Impact on Clinical Practice , 2004, Circulation.

[2]  R T Miyagishima,et al.  Re-operation for bioprosthetic aortic structural failure - risk assessment. , 2003, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[3]  E W Steyerberg,et al.  Clinical prediction rule for 30-day mortality in Björk-Shiley convexo-concave valve replacement. , 2003, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[4]  R T Miyagishima,et al.  Reoperation for Bioprosthetic Mitral Structural Failure: Risk Assessment , 2003, Circulation.

[5]  L. S. Morton,et al.  Use of flexibility tests in the manufacturing process of 60 degrees Björk-Shiley convexo-concave valves and the risk of outlet strut fracture. , 2003, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[6]  M. Fujita,et al.  Strut fracture of Björk-Shiley convexo-concave valve in Japan--risk of small valve size--. , 2001, Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia.

[7]  R Z Omar,et al.  Outlet strut fracture of Björk-Shiley convexo concave heart valves: the UK cohort study , 2001, Heart.

[8]  P V Lawford,et al.  Outlet strut fracture of Björk-Shiley convexo-concave valves: can valve-manufacturing characteristics explain the risk? , 2001, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[9]  L. Signorello,et al.  Self-reported quality of life and health among Björk-Shiley convexo-concave prosthetic heart valve patients. , 2001, Journal of Heart Valve Disease.

[10]  R Z Omar,et al.  Risks of fracture of Björk-Shiley 60 degree convexo-concave prosthetic heart valves: long-term cohort follow up in the UK, Netherlands and USA. , 2001, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[11]  A. Algra,et al.  Long-term survival after valve replacement with björk-shiley CC valves∗ , 2000 .

[12]  J. Habbema,et al.  Decision Analyses for Prophylactic Replacement of the Björk-Shiley Convexo-concave Heart Valve: , 2000, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[13]  G. Poletti,et al.  Bjork-Shiley convexo-concave valve: is a prophylactic re-replacement justified? , 1999, Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery.

[14]  M Kallewaard,et al.  Which manufacturing characteristics are predictors of outlet strut fracture in large sixty-degree Björk-Shiley convexo-concave mitral valves? The Björk-Shiley Study Group. , 1999, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[15]  U. Kaufmann,et al.  [Bj"ork-Shiley heart vales at the Bern University Hospital. Long-term follow-up of 12 to 23 years after mitral and aortic valve replacement in 503 patients]. , 1999, Praxis.

[16]  G Thiene,et al.  Multivariate analysis of survival after malfunctioning biological and mechanical prosthesis replacement. , 1998, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[17]  M Kallewaard,et al.  Likelihood of underreporting of outlet strut fracture from examination of the Dutch Björk-Shiley CC cohort. , 1998, The American journal of cardiology.

[18]  G. Vlahakes,et al.  Repeat aortic root replacement. , 1998, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[19]  G. Vlahakes,et al.  Risk of reoperative valve replacement for failed mitral and aortic bioprostheses. , 1998, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[20]  A. Algra,et al.  Prophylactic replacement of Björk-Shiley convexo-concave valves at risk of strut fracture. Björk-Shiley Study Group. , 1998, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[21]  W. Blot,et al.  Shop order fracture rate as a risk factor for strut fracture in Björk-Shiley CC60 degrees heart valves. , 1997, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[22]  A. Algra,et al.  Welder identity, weld date, and the risk of outlet strut fracture in Björk-Shiley convexo-concave valves: the Dutch cohort study. , 1996, Heart.

[23]  James G. Chandler,et al.  Radiographic Detection of Single Strut Leg Separations as a Putative Basis for Prophylactic Explantation of Björk-Shiley Convexo-Concave Heart Valves , 1996, World Journal of Surgery.

[24]  E. Sivertssen [The failing heart valve. History of the Björk-Shiley convex-concave heart valve]. , 1996, Tidsskrift for Den Norske Laegeforening.

[25]  J. Habbema,et al.  Prophylactic replacement of Björk-Shiley convexo-concave heart valves: an easy-to-use tool to aid decision-making in individual patients. , 1996, Heart.

[26]  Nancy A. Dreyer,et al.  Patient Factors Associated With Strut Fracture in Björk-Shiley 60° Convexo-Concave Heart Valves , 1995 .

[27]  N. Dreyer,et al.  Manufacturing characteristics associated with strut fracture in Björk-Shiley 60 degrees Convexo-Concave heart valves. , 1995, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[28]  James G. Chandler,et al.  Radiographic detection of strut separations in Björk-Shiley convexo-concave mitral valves. , 1995, The New England journal of medicine.

[29]  G. Laub,et al.  Perioperative events in patients with failed mechanical and bioprosthetic valves. , 1995, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[30]  W. Jamieson,et al.  Reoperation in biological and mechanical valve populations: fate of the reoperative patient. , 1995, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[31]  J. Pirk,et al.  An alternative to cardioplegia. , 1995, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[32]  James G. Chandler,et al.  Prophylactic reoperation for strut fractures of the Björk-Shiley convexo-concave heart valve. , 1994, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[33]  James G. Chandler,et al.  Utilization of manufacturers' implant card data to estimate heart valve failure. , 1993, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[34]  L. Cohn,et al.  Decrease in operative risk of reoperative valve surgery. , 1993, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[35]  J. Habbema,et al.  Age Thresholds for Prophylactic Replacement of Bjork‐Shiley Convexo‐concave Heart Valves A Clinical and Economic Evaluation , 1993, Circulation.

[36]  C A Marrin,et al.  The Björk-Shiley dilemma. , 1993, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[37]  E. Blackstone,et al.  Recommendations for prophylactic removal of heart valve prostheses. , 1992, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[38]  J. Birkmeyer,et al.  Should patients with Björk-Shiley valves undergo prophylactic replacement? , 1992, The Lancet.

[39]  Y. Graaf,et al.  Risk of strut fracture of Björk-Shiley valves , 1992, The Lancet.

[40]  D J Wheatley,et al.  Twelve-year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. , 1991, The New England journal of medicine.

[41]  L. Mickleborough,et al.  Clinical performance of Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valves: a perspective on outlet strut fractures in the 60 degrees and 70 degrees convexo-concave disc models. , 1988, The Canadian journal of cardiology.

[42]  V. Björk,et al.  Mechanical failure of the Björk-Shiley valve. Updated follow-up and considerations on prophylactic rereplacement. , 1986, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[43]  Noel S. Weiss,et al.  Reoperation on prosthetic heart valves , 1995 .

[44]  James G. Chandler,et al.  Reoperation on prosthetic heart values. Patient-specific estimates of in-hospital events. , 1995, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[45]  G. Thiene,et al.  Early and late outcome after reoperation for prosthetic valve dysfunction: analysis of 549 patients during a 26-year period. , 1994, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[46]  H. Scully,et al.  Strut fracture with Björk-Shiley 70 degrees convexo-concave valve. An international multi-institutional follow-up study. , 1992, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[47]  J. M. Bernal,et al.  Reoperation for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction. A decade of clinical experience. , 1991, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[48]  V. Björk,et al.  The improved Björk-Shiley tilting disc valve prosthesis. , 1978, Scandinavian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.