Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 428

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Twelve-Year Comparison of a Bjork–Shiley Mechanical Heart Valve with Porcine Bioprostheses

Open access
Bloomfield, Peter, Wheatley, David J., Prescott, Robin J., Miller, Hugh C.·1991·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing heart-valve replacement may receive a mechanical prosthesis, necessitating lifelong anticoagulant treatment, or a porcine bioprosthesis, which involves no absolute need for anticoagulants. METHODS: We carried out a randomized, prospective trial to compare the durability of the Bjork-Shiley mechanical prosthesis (spherical tilting-disk model) and the incidence of valve-related complications with those variables in the Hancock and the Carpentier-Edwards porcine prostheses. The mitral valve was replaced in 261 patients, the aortic valve in 211, and both in 61; the survivors have been followed up for a mean of 12 years. RESULTS: We found a trend toward improved actuarial survival after 12 years with the Bjork-Shiley prosthesis, but this trend was not statistically significant (group with Bjork-Shiley valve vs. group with porcine valve [mean +/- SE], 51.5 +/- 3.2 vs. 44.4 +/- 3.2 percent; P = 0.08). There was no significant difference in the actuarial incidence of reoperation after 5 years, but after 12 years significantly more patients with a porcine prosthesis had undergone reoperation (8.5 +/- 2.0 vs. 37.1 +/- 4.1 percent, P less than 0.001). An analysis combining death and reoperation as end points for an actuarial assessment of survival with the original prosthesis intact confirmed that the patients with Bjork-Shiley Shiley prostheses had improved survival (48.6 +/- 3.2 vs. 30.0 +/- 3.0 percent after 12 years, P less than 0.001). Bleeding requiring hospitalization or blood transfusion was significantly more frequent in the patients with Bjork-Shiley prostheses (18.6 +/- 3.2 vs. 7.1 +/- 2.3 percent after 12 years, P less than 0.01). There was no significant difference after 12 years in the actuarial occurrence of embolism (Bjork-Shiley vs. porcine, 21.1 +/- 3.1 vs. 26.4 +/- 3.5 percent) or endocarditis (3.7 +/- 1.4 vs 4.6 +/- 1.6 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Survival with an intact valve is better among patients with the Bjork-Shiley spherical tilting-disk prosthesis than among patients with porcine bioprostheses, but use of the Bjork-Shiley valve carries an attendant increased risk of bleeding associated with the need for anticoagulant treatment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm199102283240901

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 428

Metadata

Authors
Bloomfield, P., Wheatley, D. J., Prescott, R. J., & Miller, H. C.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1991-02-28
Volume
324
Issue
9
Pages
573-579
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2327876284
Cited by
428
References
0
FWCI
13.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Twelve-Year Comparison of a Bjork–Shiley Mechanical Heart Valve with Porcine Bioprostheses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199102283240901
The paper
Bloomfield, P., Wheatley, D. J., Prescott, R. J., & Miller, H. C. (1991). Twelve-Year Comparison of a Bjork–Shiley Mechanical Heart Valve with Porcine Bioprostheses. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199102283240901

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.