Original Article
A Comparison of Outcomes in Men 11 Years after Heart-Valve Replacement with a Mechanical Valve or Bioprosthesis
N Engl J Med 1993; 328:1289-1296May 6, 1993
- Abstract
Background
Mechanical heart valves are durable but thrombogenic, and their use requires that the patient receive anticoagulants. In contrast, bioprosthetic valves are less thrombogenic, but they have limited durability because of tissue deterioration.
Methods
To compare the outcomes of patients who receive these two types of valves, we randomly assigned 575 men scheduled to undergo aortic-valve or mitral-valve replacement to receive either a mechanical or a bioprosthetic valve. The primary end points were death from any cause and any valve-related complication.
Results
During an average follow-up of 11 years, there was no difference between the two groups in the probability of death from any cause (11-year probability for mechanical valves, 0.57; for bioprostheses, 0.62; P = 0.57) or in the probability of any valve-related complication (0.65 and 0.69, respectively; P = 0.39). There was a much higher rate of structural valve failure among patients who received bioprosthetic valves (11-year probability, 0.15 for the aortic valves and 0.36 for the mitral valves) than among those who received mechanical valves (no valve failures; P<0.001). However, this difference was offset by a higher rate of bleeding complications among patients with mechanical valves than among those with bioprosthetic valves (11-year probability, 0.42 and 0.26, respectively; P<0.001) and by a greater frequency of periprosthetic valvular regurgitation among patients with mechanical mitral valves than among those with mitral bioprostheses (11-year probability, 0.17 and 0.09, respectively; P = 0.05).
Conclusions
After 11 years, the rates of survival and freedom from all valve-related complications were similar for patients who received mechanical heart valves and those who received bioprosthetic heart valves. However, structural failure was observed only with the bioprosthetic valves, whereas bleeding complications were more frequent among patients who received mechanical valves.
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Probability of Death from Any Cause among Patients with Mechanical Valves and Those with Bioprosthetic Valves.Figure 2
Probability of Any Valve-Related Complication among Patients with Mechanical Valves and Those with Bioprosthetic Valves.Article Activity
- Article
Although many advances have been made in the design and construction of prosthetic heart valves since the first successful human valve replacements were performed by Starr and Edwards1 and Harken et al.2 in 1960, none of the currently available prosthetic heart valves approach the normal human valve in either hemodynamic function or freedom from valve-related complications. The mechanical prosthetic valves offer satisfactory hemodynamic function and long-term durability, but they are thrombogenic, and patients who receive them require long-term anticoagulation with warfarin, with its associated increase in the risk of bleeding. Bioprosthetic valves are less thrombogenic and usually do not require that the patient receive anticoagulant agents; however, structural degeneration of the valves limits their durability. Because the incidence of death and valve-related complications is clearly related to characteristics of the patients, such as ventricular function, cardiac index, and overall clinical condition,3,4 a randomized trial was required to compare the outcomes with these two types of valves. In the only other recent randomized trial comparing outcomes after valve replacement with bioprostheses and with mechanical prosthetic valves, Bloomfield and colleagues reported a higher rate of survival with an intact prosthesis at 12 years for patients with mechanical valves5. In this report we present the results of a multicenter trial in which we compared the outcomes an average of 11 years after randomization of 575 patients who received mechanical or bioprosthetic valves.
Methods
Patients
From 1977 through 1982, we randomly assigned 575 men who were scheduled to undergo aortic-valve or mitral-valve replacement (but not both) to receive either a Bjork-Shiley spherical-disk mechanical heart valve or a Hancock porcine-heterograft bioprosthetic valve6,7; randomization took place in the operating room. The study was carried out at 13 participating Veterans Affairs medical centers. The protocol was approved by both a central institutional review board and by the institutional review board at each of the centers. Other criteria for eligibility were that the patient have no history of valve replacement, no active endocarditis, no contraindication to anticoagulation with warfarin, a diameter of ≥ 21 mm for an aortic prosthesis or ≥ 27 mm for a mitral prosthesis, and a life expectancy, exclusive of cardiac disease, of three or more years and that the patient give informed, written consent. The 110 patients who received a 21-mm or 23-mm aortic prosthesis were randomly assigned to receive a modified-orifice Hancock porcine heterograft or a Bjork-Shiley valve; 181 received mitral-valve prostheses. The 284 patients who received larger aortic valves were randomly assigned to receive either a standard Hancock bioprosthesis or a Bjork-Shiley valve.
A comparison of the base-line characteristics of the two treatment groups documented the expected similarities between patients assigned to receive the two valve types7. The mean age at entry was 59 ±8 years; 76 percent of the patients (437 of 575) were in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV. Angiographically demonstrable coronary artery disease was present in 44 percent of the patients (247 of 563). All the patients were asked to undergo postoperative cardiac catheterization at six months; the results in the 268 who had the procedure showed no important differences between the two groups in valve gradient, orifice area, or left ventricular function8.
Follow-up
Follow-up data on death, valve-related complications, functional status, and adequacy of anticoagulation were collected at semiannual clinic visits from 1977 through 1985; however, subsequent follow-up data collected by means of a mailed questionnaire and by telephone were limited to the occurrence of death and valve-related complications. All suspected valve-related complications and all deaths were reviewed by a committee blinded to the type of valve for a final determination of whether a valve-related complication had occurred. Only two patients were lost to follow-up, but they were considered to be alive because they have not been identified as having died in searches of two national data bases on deaths, the Department of Veterans Affairs Beneficiary Identification and Records Locator Subsystem and the National Death Index.
Data Analysis
Primary End Points
The two primary end points of this trial were the length of time to death from any cause, including death during surgery (operative mortality), and the length of time to the first occurrence of any of the following nonfatal valve-related complications: systemic embolism, clinically important bleeding, prosthetic-valve endocarditis, valve thrombosis, nonthrombotic valve obstruction, prosthetic valvular regurgitation, and reoperation on the randomly assigned valve for any other reason. The deaths of patients who died suddenly and were not examined at autopsy and those whose cause of death could not be classified were coded as valve-related deaths.
Valve-Related Complications
Prosthetic-valve regurgitation was subdivided into perivalvular regurgitation and central valvular regurgitation, as determined by angiography, during surgery, or at autopsy. To be so classified, prosthetic-valve regurgitation, valve thrombosis, or nonthrombotic valve obstruction had to have been sufficiently severe to result in reoperation or death. The protocol defined clinically important bleeding as bleeding resulting in death; a decrease of 2.0 g per deciliter or more in the hemoglobin concentration, the transfusion of two or more units of blood, or both; intracerebral hemorrhage; gross hematuria leading to hospitalization, urologic manipulation, or cessation of anticoagulation or lasting more than 24 hours; or deep-space hematoma or hemarthrosis leading to hospitalization or disability. Clinically important bleeding occurring within 48 hours of the initial cardiopulmonary bypass was not considered valve-related; otherwise, all bleeding episodes that met the above criteria were classified as valve-related complications. A post hoc analysis was performed in which severe bleeding was defined as that resulting in any one or more of the following: transfusion of three or more units, a 20 percent drop in the hemoglobin level, a hemoglobin level below 7.0 g per deciliter, a new neurologic deficit lasting two days or more, or death9. Structural valve failure was defined as late nonthrombotic valve obstruction or central valvular regurgitation (not occurring at the time of the initial operation).
Results
Operative Mortality
Operative mortality was 8 percent (44 of 575) for all patients and 11 percent (26 of 247) for the subgroup with coronary artery disease; there was no significant difference between the study groups according to valve type or location. Coronary artery bypass grafting was performed in 79 percent (194 of 247) of the patients with coronary artery disease; there was no significant difference between the groups with bioprosthetic or mechanical valves in either the operative mortality12 or the late survival of these patients. For patients who received bioprosthetic valves, the probability of death from any cause over the 11-year period was 0.68 for patients with coronary artery disease who underwent bypass grafting and 0.64 for similar patients who did not undergo bypass grafting (P = 0.97). For patients who received mechanical valves the comparable figures were 0.64 and 0.67 (P = 0.89).
Death from All Causes
Primary End Point
There were no significant differences in the first primary end point defined in the protocol, the probability of death from any cause, between patients who underwent replacement of the aortic or mitral valve, with or without coronary artery bypass grafting, according to whether the patients were assigned to receive a bioprosthesis or a mechanical prosthesis (Table 1Table 1
Probability of Death Due to Any Cause, Any Valve-Related Complication, and Individual Valve-Related Complications 11 Years after Randomization, According to Type and Location of Replacement Valve., Figure 1Figure 1Probability of Death from Any Cause among Patients with Mechanical Valves and Those with Bioprosthetic Valves.).Post Hoc End Points
There were also no significant differences between the groups in the following end points examined in the post hoc analysis: death from all causes for the combined group of patients who received prosthetic aortic or mitral valves (11-year probability for bioprosthetic valves, 0.62; for mechanical valves, 0.57; P = 0.57), deaths from cardiac causes only (11-year probability, 0.48 and 0.41, respectively; P = 0.22), and valve-related deaths only (11-year probability, 0.44 and 0.32, respectively; P = 0.07). Nor were there differences according to the type of valve when the results for patients with and without coronary artery disease were evaluated (11-year probability for patients with coronary artery disease, 0.67 and 0.65, respectively; P = 0.65; for patients without coronary artery disease, 0.52 and 0.48, respectively; P = 0.59).
All Valve-Related Complications
Primary End Point
There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in the second primary end point defined in the protocol, the length of time to the first valve-related complication, whether patients received a mechanical or bioprosthetic valve, with the aortic and mitral positions examined separately (Table 1, Figure 2Figure 2
Probability of Any Valve-Related Complication among Patients with Mechanical Valves and Those with Bioprosthetic Valves.).Post Hoc End Points
There were also no significant differences in the length of time to the first valve-related complication when we examined the following post hoc end points: all valve-related complications according to the protocol definition of bleeding for both aortic and mitral valves combined (11-year probability for bioprostheses, 0.69; for mechanical valves, 0.65; P = 0.39); and all valve-related complications according to the post hoc definition of serious bleeding for both valve positions combined (11-year probability, 0.61 and 0.48, respectively; P = 0.17), for aortic-valve replacement (0.54 and 0.44, respectively; P = 0.17), and for mitral-valve replacement (0.75 and 0.58, respectively; P = 0.82).
Individual Valve-Related Complications
Systemic Embolism
There was no significant difference in the occurrence of systemic embolism between patients with bioprostheses and those with mechanical valves in either the aortic position (P = 0.49) or the mitral position (P = 0.61). Fifteen percent (10 of 65) of embolic episodes resulted in death.
Clinically Important Bleeding
There were 155 patients with one or more clinically important bleeding episodes (Figure 3Figure 3
Probability of Clinically Important Bleeding among Patients with Mechanical Valves and Those with Bioprosthetic Valves.), as defined in the original protocol. Bleeding occurred significantly more frequently among patients with mechanical prosthetic valves, whether we analyzed those who underwent aortic-valve replacement or those who underwent mitral-valve replacement (Table 1); the 11-year probability of bleeding complications for both positions combined was 0.42 for mechanical valves and 0.26 for bioprosthetic valves (P<0.001). Nineteen percent (29 of 155) of bleeding episodes resulted in death. Anticoagulation with warfarin was recorded as being used at one or more of the six-month follow-up visits in 32 percent (63 of 196) of the patients with an aortic bioprosthesis and 63 percent (59 of 93) of those with a mitral bioprosthesis. Atrial fibrillation was present in 43 percent (52 of 122) of the patients with bioprosthetic valves who took warfarin at some time during follow-up. Among bleeding episodes in patients who received warfarin while we were collecting prothrombin-time data (1977 through 1985), the most recent prothrombin-time ratio measured before the bleeding episode was in the specified therapeutic range (2.0 to 2.5 times the control value) in 18 percent (22 of 119) of the episodes, below the therapeutic range in 47 percent (56 of 119), above the therapeutic range in 12 percent (14 of 119), and unknown in 23 percent (27 of 119). According to the therapeutic range that is now recommended (1.5 to 2.0 times control), 24 percent of the patients (28 of 119) would have been classified as having excessive anticoagulation at the time of their bleeding episode.Serious Bleeding
Using the post hoc definition of serious bleeding,9 108 patients had one or more such episodes. In 8 of these patients (7 percent) the bleeding episode was associated with a surgical procedure (the original valve replacement in 7 and a tooth extraction in 1); in the cases of the remaining patients, the primary site of bleeding was the gastrointestinal tract in 62 (57 percent), the brain in 18 (17 percent), the urinary tract in 11 (10 percent), muscle or joint in 4 (4 percent), and the nose in 5 (5 percent). Thirty-seven patients required the transfusion of three or more units of blood. The differences in the rate of occurrence of serious bleeding between the patients with bioprosthetic valves and those with mechanical valves remained significant for aortic and mitral positions combined (11-year probability, 0.17 and 0.29, respectively; P<0.001), for patients with an aortic-valve prosthesis (0.18 and 0.26, respectively; P = 0.02), and for patients with a mitral-valve prosthesis (0.16 and 0.38, respectively; P = 0.01).
Prosthetic-Valve Endocarditis
There was no statistically significant difference in the rates of occurrence of prosthetic-valve endocarditis between patients who underwent aortic-valve or mitral-valve replacement with bioprostheses and those who received mechanical valves (Table 1). This was a catastrophic complication with a 43 percent mortality (18 of 42).
Prosthetic-Valve Thrombosis
Prosthetic-valve thrombosis was a rare event with an 11-year probability of 0.01 to 0.02 for patients with either type of valve in either position. The difference between the types of valves was not statistically significant for either position (Table 1). Despite its rarity, this was a frequently lethal event with a mortality rate of 83 percent (5 of 6).
Periprosthetic-Valve Regurgitation
Perivalvular regurgitation occurred significantly more often among patients undergoing mitral-valve replacement with a mechanical prosthesis than among those receiving a bioprosthesis (11-year probability, 0.17 and 0.09, respectively; P = 0.05) (Table 1). Similar differences were seen between the groups among patients undergoing aortic-valve replacement (Table 1).
Structural Valve Failure
In 31 patients, all of whom had bioprostheses, there was structural valve failure (Figure 4Figure 4
Probability of Structural Valve Failure among Patients with the Mechanical Valves and Those with Bioprosthetic Valves.). The probability of structural failure at 11 years was 0.15 for patients with an aortic bioprosthesis and 0.36 for patients with a mitral bioprosthesis (P<0.001). The mortality associated with structural valve failure was 39 percent (12 of 31); 5 of the deaths occurred at reoperation.Reoperation
The distribution of repeat operations on the randomly assigned prosthetic valve according to the type of valve, its location, and the cause is shown in Table 2Table 2
Incidence of and Reasons for Reoperation.. There was a trend (P = 0.07) toward a shorter time to reoperation among patients with aortic bioprostheses than among those with mechanical prostheses; the probability of reoperation at 11 years was 0.16 and 0.07, respectively. This difference was due to reoperation for structural valve failure and to the necessity of changing valves at the initial operation (four patients were randomly assigned to receive a bioprosthetic valve that could not be adequately seated or that obstructed a coronary orifice, necessitating the use of a mechanical valve). There was no significant difference in the probability of reoperation among patients with the two types of mitral prosthesis (P = 0.23). However, there was an accelerating rate of reoperation 10 years or more after valve implantation, so that the probability of reoperation at 11 years was 0.47 for patients with the bioprosthetic mitral valve, as compared with 0.21 for those with the mechanical mitral valve. No significant differences in the proportion of each group that was free of the post hoc combined end point of death, reoperation, or both were observed between the patients with a bioprosthetic valve and those with a mechanical valve for both valve positions combined (11-year probability, 0.68 and 0.59, respectively; P = 0.23), for patients with an aortic prosthesis (11-year probability, 0.63 and 0.56, respectively; P = 0.16), or for patients with a mitral prosthesis (11-year probability, 0.77 and 0.67, respectively; P = 0.86).Causes of Death
Patients with an Aortic Prosthesis
The difference in the distribution of causes of death between patients with a mechanical aortic-valve prosthesis and those with an aortic-valve bioprosthesis was of borderline statistical significance (P = 0.05). Among patients with a mechanical aortic valve, 38 percent of deaths (38 of 99) were attributed to valve-related complications, 20 percent (20 of 99) to nonvalvular cardiac causes, and 41 percent (41 of 99) to noncardiac causes. Among patients with an aortic bioprosthesis, 50 percent of deaths (51 of 103) were valve-related, 25 percent (26 of 103) were due to nonvalvular cardiac problems, and 25 percent (26 of 103) to noncardiac causes. Only 6 percent of deaths (6 of 103) among patients with an aortic bioprosthesis were due to structural valve failure.
Patients with a Mitral Prosthesis
There was no significant difference in the distribution of causes of death between patients who received mitral bioprostheses and those who received mechanical mitral valves. Among patients with a mechanical mitral-valve prosthesis, 56 percent of deaths (30 of 54) were valve-related, 33 percent (18 of 54) were due to nonvalvular cardiac causes, and only 11 percent (6 of 54) were due to noncardiac causes. Among patients with a bioprosthetic mitral valve, 72 percent of deaths (38 of 53) were valve-related, 21 percent (11 of 53) were due to nonvalvular cardiac causes, and 8 percent (4 of 53) were due to noncardiac causes. Structural valve failure accounted for only 11 percent of the deaths (6 of 53) among patients with mitral bioprostheses.
Discussion
Because the much more frequent occurrence of bleeding in patients with mechanical prostheses offset the higher risk of structural valve failure in patients with bioprosthetic valves, we observed no significant differences between the two study groups in the primary end points of this randomized trial -- namely, the probability of dying from any cause or having any valve-related complication. Because our study population included only middle-aged and older men, these results may not apply to women or to younger men.
A previous study from Edinburgh examined this same question and came to different conclusions5. To compare the results of the Edinburgh Heart Valve Trial with ours, we constructed Figure 5Figure 5
Event Rates at 12 Years in the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study on Valvular Heart Disease (VA) and the Edinburgh Heart Valve Trial (EHVT)., which shows the 12-year event rates in our trial and the Edinburgh trial5. The probability of death at 12 years was slightly lower in the Edinburgh trial, a difference that probably reflects the younger age of the patients and a lower incidence of coronary artery disease. The 12-year probability of endocarditis and bleeding was greater in our trial than in the Edinburgh trial, whereas the probability of reoperation on a bioprosthetic valve was lower. These differences in event rates between the two trials are unlikely to be due to differences in the definitions of complications. Instead, they are most likely to be explained by differences in the intensity of anticoagulation, the base-line characteristics of the patients7 (for example, younger age and a higher percentage of women increase the probability of structural failure in a bioprosthetic valve3), and possibly the intensity of follow-up surveillance.There is considerable evidence that the outcomes of patients who received the valves we studied in 1977 through 1982 are similar to the outcomes with prostheses used today. The bioprosthetic valves that are currently available appear to be similar in terms of the risk of structural failure5,13-15 and in hemodynamic function16 to the Hancock bioprosthesis. Similarly, no differences in outcome were found between patients randomly assigned to receive a Bjork-Shiley spherical-disk valve and those who received the widely used St. Jude mechanical prosthesis17.
The relatively high rates of bleeding in our study were due largely to the relatively intensive anticoagulant therapy. The recommended prothrombin-time ratio in our protocol -- 2 to 2.5 times the control value -- was consistent with clinical practice in the United States in 1975 and 197618 but higher than the current recommendation of 1.5 to 2.0 times control18,19 and also higher than that used in the Edinburgh Heart Valve Trial. Increasing the prothrombin-time ratio from 1.5 to 2.5 doubles the risk of bleeding19. Anticoagulation control seems not to have been a major factor, since only 12 percent of bleeding episodes were associated with prothrombin-time ratios above the range recommended in the protocol.
Although this trial confirms the limited durability of the bioprostheses, as compared with the mechanical valves, that was found in the Edinburgh trial5 and numerous observational studies,3,13-15,20-40 this finding must be interpreted in the context of the characteristics of the individual patient and the nature of alternative forms of therapy. The probability of death, valve-related complications, and reoperation did not differ significantly between patients with the two types of valves, because bleeding and periprosthetic regurgitation occurred more frequently in patients with the mechanical prostheses. Furthermore, structural valve failure accounted for only 6 percent of deaths and one quarter of all valve-related complications among patients with aortic bioprosthetic valves, and less than half of all valve-related complications and only 11 percent of the deaths among patients with mitral bioprostheses. The rate of reoperation among the patients with bioprostheses was nearly twice that among the patients with mechanical valves. Because the findings of the Edinburgh Heart Valve Trial, our data, and the results of numerous observational studies indicate that the rate of structural failure of bioprostheses may be accelerating, we plan to follow the patients in our study through 1995.
In our study, mortality at reoperation was approximately 25 percent, which is similar to the 30 percent mortality rate reported for the Edinburgh Heart Valve Trial5 and the 20 percent rate reported by Morishita et al.,37 but higher than the 10 percent rate reported by Bortolotti and colleagues,41 the 8.7 percent rate reported by Pansini and associates,38 or the remarkable 4.7 percent reported by Jones et al34. Over one third of the deaths at reoperation in our study occurred in patients with prosthetic-valve endocarditis; the mortality rate of 50 percent in this group is similar to that in many other reports. The mortality at reoperation among patients without prosthetic-valve endocarditis was 19 percent.
Clinical Implications
Because the overall outcomes of patients who received mechanical or bioprosthetic heart valves were similar after an average follow-up of 11 years, the decision about which type of valve to use should be based on the risks of anticoagulant-related bleeding, structural failure of the bioprosthetic valve, and death at reoperation in each individual patient. Thus, we would favor the use of the bioprosthetic valve in older patients (>60 years of age) who are undergoing aortic-valve replacement, because of the increased likelihood of bleeding among the elderly and the low likelihood of structural failure of the bioprosthesis in the remaining expected life of these patients. Because of the teratogenic effect of warfarin, women who desire to become pregnant should receive a bioprosthesis, provided they are willing to accept a high probability of reoperation 10 years or more after valve replacement. We recommend the use of a mechanical prosthesis for most patients undergoing mitral-valve replacement and for most younger patients ( ≤ 60 years of age), because of the very high risk of structural failure in bioprosthetic mitral valves and because younger patients are more likely to outlive the duration of satisfactory bioprosthetic-valve function. These recommendations may need to be altered if the further follow-up planned for this study (to 15 years) shows that the rate of structural failure of bioprostheses continues to accelerate.
Supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Research Service, Cooperative Studies Program.
Source Information
From the Cardiology Section, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and the Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver (K.E.H.); the Cardiothoracic Surgery Section, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and the Department of Surgery, University of Arizona Health Sciences Center, Tucson (G.K.S.); the Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Hines, Ill. (W.G.H., C.O., T.K.); and the Department of Medicine, Section of Cardiology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles (S.R.).
Address reprint requests to Dr. Hammermeister at the Cardiology Section (111B), Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 1055 Clermont, Denver, CO 80220.
The participants in this study are listed in the Appendix.
Appendix
The following persons and institutions participated in the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study on Valvular Heart Disease (former participants are indicated by an asterisk): Offices and laboratory of the cochairmen: Seattle and Denver -- K.E. Hammermeister (cochairman, medical), J. Heller,* W.M. Hamilton,* C. Burchfiel,* J.L. VanDamme,* C.S. Miller,* S. Kelly,* M.A. Olsen,* R. Firmin,* S. Siefken,* C. Hixson,* B.L. Buck,* S. Stokes,* H. Brandmo,* J. Rathbun,* A. Birdwell, and R. Johnson; Tucson, Ariz. -- G.K. Sethi (cochairman, surgical), M. Garrison,* D. Bunting,* L. Rochester,* and M. Haluja.
Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers, investigators, and supporting personnel: Albany, N.Y. -- G. Bousvaros* and M. Silverman*; Asheville, N.C. -- L. Ramesh,* V. Prokhov,* S.M. Scott, T. Maley, and A. Oakes*; Hines, Ill. -- R.P. Croke,* M. Hwang, P. Rice,* C. Thatcher,* M. White,* and L. Murphy*; Miami -- B.R. Alter,* R. Sequeria,* A. Vargas,* F. Wideman,* R. Chahine,* S. Heyman,* L. Keene,* B. Andritsch,* A. Palomo, and P. Wozniak*; Minneapolis -- G. Pierpont, Y. Sako, M. Park,* M. Johnson,* K. McGregor,* P. Kruse,* and S. Ewald*; Oklahoma City -- E. Schechter, R. Elkins, and D. Noel*; Palo Alto, Calif. -- D. Baim,* N. Robert,* J. Giacomini, D.C. Miller, M. Jamond,* and D. Tovey*; Richmond, Va. -- Z. ul Hassan,* S. Szentpetery, K. Wong,* J. Zierenberg,* and J. Mallory*; San Antonio, Tex. -- B. Groves,* S. Sorensen,* M. Crawford, F. Grover, S. Baca Mancia,* and J. Vittitoe*; San Diego, Calif. -- A. Johnson,* R. Shabetai, W.Y. Moores, G. Dennis,* P. Reilly,* L. Prescott,* and C. McNally Nielsen*; Wadsworth, Calif. -- P. Shah,* M. Wong, J.S. Carey,* J. Witting,* B. Smith,* W. Carnegie,* and N. Sadler*; West Haven, Conn. -- R. Zito,* G. Kopf,* R. Shaw,* M. Cleman,* J. Elesteriades, S. Hashim,* E. Pendergast,* and C. Berman*; West Roxbury, Mass. -- E.D. Folland, S. Khuri, S. Karaffa,* L. Painter,* M. Brew,* and C. Carbone.*
Executive Committee: K.E. Hammermeister and C. Burchfiel, Denver, Colo.; G.K. Sethi, Tucson, Ariz.; J. Souchek, W.G. Henderson, and A. Cantor,* Hines, Ill.; S. Khuri, E.D. Folland, and E.M. Barsamian,* West Roxbury, Mass.; S. Rahimtoola, Los Angeles; W. Hamilton, Seattle; and A. Johnson,* San Diego, Calif.
Death and Complications Subcommittee: F.L. Grover, K.E. Hammermeister, S. Rahimtoola, and G. Sethi.
Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Hines, Ill.: W.G. Henderson, M. Teutsch,* J. Rowe, J. Souchek,* A. Cantor,* C.A. Oprian, S. Mo,* E. Barnes, C. Harrison, D. Hong,* K. Hur,* T. Kim, M.A. Centanni, M.E. Vitek, W. Armstrong, P. Walther,* D. Zulb, and L. Ulmer.
Special Laboratories, Seattle: Pathology -- D. Reichenbach; Hemolysis -- C. Delaney* and G. Madden.*
Oversight Committees: Operations Committee -- D.R. Labarthe (chairman), W.A. Baxley, P. Meier,* P. Canner, and R.M. Nelson; Human Rights Committee -- E. Hagerty (chairwoman), J. Umbel McKoy,* L. Lawson,* P. Peterson,* E. Perez,* E.M. Butler, D. Hall,* M. Feldbush, H.C. Dudley,* J. Hutchinson,* N. Cahill,* P.J. Moran, W. Upholt,* N. Emanuele, B. Harvey, T.M. Schmid, and J. Stinehelfer.
Central Administration, Cooperative Studies Program: D. Deykin and J. Gold, Boston; and P.C. Huang, Washington, D.C.
- References
References
1
Starr A ,Edwards ML . Mitral replacement: clinical experience with a ball-valve prosthesis. Ann Surg 1961;154:726-740
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline2
Harken DE ,Soroff HS ,Taylor WJ ,Lefemine AA ,Gupta SK ,Lunzer S . Partial and complete prostheses in aortic insufficiency. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1960;40:744-762
Web of Science | Medline3
Mitchell RS ,Miller DC ,Stinson EB , et al. Significant patient-related determinants of prosthetic valve performance. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1986;91:807-817
Web of Science | Medline4
Rahimtoola SH . Lessons learned about the determinants of the results of valve surgery. Circulation 1988;78:1503-1507[Erratum, Circulation 1989;79:732.]
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Bloomfield P ,Wheatley DJ ,Prescott RJ ,Miller HC . Twelve-year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. N Engl J Med 1991;324:573-579
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline6
VA Cooperative Study Group on Valvular Heart Disease
CrossRef | Medline7
Hammermeister KE ,Henderson WG ,Burchfiel CM , et al. Comparison of outcome after valve replacement with a bioprosthesis versus a mechanical prosthesis: initial 5 year results of a randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1987;10:719-732
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline8
Khuri SF ,Folland ED ,Sethi GK , et al. Six month postoperative hemodynamics of the Hancock heterograft and the Bjork-Shiley prosthesis: results of a Veterans Administration cooperative prospective randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1988;12:8-18
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Landefeld CS ,Anderson PA ,Goodnough LT , et al. The bleeding severity index: validation and comparison to other methods for classifying bleeding complications of medical therapy. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42:711-718
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline10
Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL. The statistical analysis of failure time data. New York: John Wiley, 1980:12-5.
11
Lee ET. Statistical methods for survival data analysis. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley, 1992:104-12.
12
Sethi GK ,Miller DC ,Souchek J , et al. Clinical, hemodynamic, and angiographic predictors of operative mortality in patients undergoing single valve replacement: Veterans Administration Cooperative Study on Valvular Heart Disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1987;93:884-897
Web of Science | Medline13
Cobanoglu A ,Jamieson WR ,Miller DC , et al. A tri-institutional comparison of tissue and mechanical valves using a patient-oriented definition of “treatment failure.” Ann Thorac Surg 1987;43:245-253
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline14
Gallo I ,Nistal F ,Arbe E ,Artinano E . Comparative study of primary tissue failure between porcine (Hancock and Carpentier-Edwards) and bovine pericardial (Ionescu-Shiley) bioprostheses in the aortic position at five- to nine-year follow-up. Am J Cardiol 1988;61:812-816
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline15
Perier P ,Deloche A ,Chauvaud S , et al. A 10-year comparison of mitral valve replacement with Carpentier-Edwards and Hancock porcine bioprostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 1989;48:54-59
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline16
Levine FH ,Carter JE ,Buckley MJ ,Daggett WM ,Akins CW ,Austen WG . Hemodynamic evaluation of Hancock and Carpentier-Edwards bioprostheses. Circulation 1981;64:Suppl II:II-192
CrossRef17
Vogt S ,Hoffmann A ,Roth J , et al. Heart valve replacement with the Bjork-Shiley and St Jude Medical prostheses: a randomized comparison in 178 patients. Eur Heart J 1990;11:583-591
Web of Science | Medline18
Hirsch J . Is the dose of warfarin prescribed by American physicians unnecessarily high? Arch Intern Med 1987;147:769-771
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline19
Saour JN ,Sieck JO ,Mamo LAR ,Gallus AS . Trial of different intensities of anticoagulation in patients with prosthetic heart valves. N Engl J Med 1990;322:428-432
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline20
Mudra H ,Kraus F ,Wellnhofer E ,Hall D ,Rudolph W . Comparison of long-term clinical follow-up after aortic or mitral valve replacement with Bjork-Shiley tilting disc prostheses or tissue valves. Z Kardiol 1986;75:Suppl 2:277-281
Medline21
Czer LS ,Matloff JM ,Chaux A ,DeRobertis MA ,Gray RJ . Comparative clinical experience with porcine bioprosthetic and St Jude valve replacement. Chest 1987;91:503-514
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline22
DiSesa VJ ,Allred EN ,Kowalker W ,Shemin RJ ,Collins JJ Jr ,Cohn LM . Performance of a fabricated trileaflet porcine bioprosthesis: midterm follow-up of the Hancock modified-orifice valve. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1987;94:220-224
Web of Science | Medline23
Foster AH ,Greenberg GJ ,Underhill DJ ,McIntosh CL ,Clark RE . Intrinsic failure of Hancock mitral bioprostheses: 10- to 15-year experience. Ann Thorac Surg 1987;44:568-577
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline24
Hammond GL ,Geha AS ,Kopf GS ,Hashim SW . Biological versus mechanical valves: analysis of 1,116 valves inserted in 1,012 adult patients with a 4,818 patient-year and a 5,327 valve-year follow-up. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1987;93:182-198
Web of Science | Medline25
Nashef SAM ,Sethia B ,Turner MA ,Davidson KG ,Lewis S ,Bain WH . Bjork-Shiley and Carpentier-Edwards valves: a comparative analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1987;93:394-404
Web of Science | Medline26
Gallucci V ,Mazzucco A ,Bortolotti U ,Milano A ,Guerra F ,Thiene G . The standard Hancock porcine bioprosthesis: overall experience at the University of Padova. J Card Surg 1988;3:Suppl:337-345
Medline27
Jamieson WRE ,Rosado LJ ,Munro AI , et al. Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine bioprosthesis: primary tissue failure (structural valve deterioration) by age groups. Ann Thorac Surg 1988;46:155-162
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline28
MacArthur KJD ,Bain WH ,Turner MA , et al. Mechanical versus biological heart valves: a ten-year comparison in a single centre. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1988;2:143-150
CrossRef | Medline29
Cohn LH ,Collins JJ Jr ,DeSesa VJ , et al. Fifteen-year experience with 1678 Hancock porcine bioprosthetic heart valve replacements. Ann Surg 1989;210:435-443
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline30
Magilligan DJ Jr ,Lewis JW Jr ,Stein P ,Alam M . The porcine bioprosthetic heart valve: experience at 15 years. Ann Thorac Surg 1989;48:324-330
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline31
Pelletier LC ,Carrier M ,Leclerc Y ,Lepage G ,deGuise P ,Dyrda I . Porcine versus pericardial bioprostheses: a comparison of late results in 1,593 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 1989;47:352-361
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline32
Teoh KH ,Ivanov J ,Weisel RD ,Darcel IC ,Rakowski H . Survival and bioprosthetic valve failure: ten-year follow-up. Circulation 1989;80:Suppl I:I-833
Akins CW ,Carroll DL ,Buckley MJ ,Daggett WM ,Hilgenberg AD ,Austen WG . Late results with Carpentier-Edwards porcine bioprosthesis. Circulation 1990;82:Suppl IV:IV-6534
Jones EL ,Weintraub WS ,Craver JM , et al. Ten-year experience with the porcine bioprosthetic valve: interrelationship of valve survival and patient survival in 1,050 valve replacements. Ann Thorac Surg 1990;49:370-384
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline35
Kawachi Y ,Tokunaga K . Preferability of bioprostheses for isolated aortic valve replacement -- a comparative study between mechanical and bioprosthetic valves. Jpn Circ J 1990;54:137-145
CrossRef | Medline36
Kawachi Y ,Tokunaga K . Clinical comparative study between mitral mechanical and bioprosthetic valves -- what is the benefit of bioprosthetic valves in the mitral position? Jpn Circ J 1990;54:1525-1534
CrossRef | Medline37
Morishita Y ,Toyohira H ,Yuda T , et al. The necessity of reoperation for patients with Bjork-Shiley, St Jude Medical, Hancock and Carpentier-Edwards prostheses. Jpn J Surg 1990;20:384-391
CrossRef | Medline38
Pansini S ,Ottino G ,Forsennati PG , et al. Reoperations on heart valve prostheses: an analysis of operative risks and late results. Ann Thorac Surg 1990;50:590-596
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline39
van Heurn LWE ,English TA . Durability of porcine bioprosthetic valves. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1991;39:32-35
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline40
Burdon TA ,Miller DC ,Oyer PE , et al. Durability of porcine valves at fifteen years in a representative North American patient population. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1992;103:238-252
Web of Science | Medline41
Bortolotti U ,Milano A ,Mossuto E , et al. The risk of reoperation in patients with bioprosthetic valves. J Card Surg 1991;6:Suppl:638-643
Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (137)
Citing Articles
1
Otakar Söhnel, Felix Grases. (2011) Supersaturation of body fluids, plasma and urine, with respect to biological hydroxyapatite. Urological Research 39:6, 429-436
CrossRef2
Deepak Kumar Satsangi. (2011) Search for the best heart valve- from replacement to repair. Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
CrossRef3
Masahiko Hara, Masami Nishino, Masayuki Taniike, Nobuhiko Makino, Hiroyasu Kato, Yasuyuki Egami, Ryu Shutta, Jun Tanouchi, Toshihiro Hunatsu, Kazuhiro Taniguchi, Yoshio Yamada. (2011) Impact of 64 multi-detector computed tomography for the evaluation of aortic paraprosthetic regurgitation. Journal of Cardiology 58:3, 294-299
CrossRef4
Yasuhide Nakayama, Yuki Yahata, Masashi Yamanami, Tsutomu Tajikawa, Kenkichi Ohba, Keiichi Kanda, Hitoshi Yaku. (2011) A completely autologous valved conduit prepared in the open form of trileaflets (type VI biovalve): Mold design and valve function in vitro. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials 99B:1, 135-141
CrossRef5
David Yi Zhang, Jay Lozier, Richard Chang, Vandana Sachdev, Marcus Y. Chen, Jennifer L. Audibert, Keith A. Horvath, Douglas R. Rosing. (2011) Case study and review: Treatment of tricuspid prosthetic valve thrombosis. International Journal of Cardiology
CrossRef6
Jeanne M. Connolly, Marina A. Bakay, Ivan S. Alferiev, Robert C. Gorman, Joseph H. Gorman, Howard S. Kruth, Paul E. Ashworth, Jaishankar K. Kutty, Frederick J. Schoen, Richard W. Bianco, Robert J. Levy. (2011) Triglycidyl Amine Crosslinking Combined With Ethanol Inhibits Bioprosthetic Heart Valve Calcification. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 92:3, 858-865
CrossRef7
Vincent Chan, B-Khanh Lam, Fraser D. Rubens, Paul Hendry, Roy Masters, Thierry G. Mesana, Marc Ruel. (2011) Long-term evaluation of biological versus mechanical prosthesis use at reoperative aortic valve replacement. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
CrossRef8
Elena Ladich, Masataka Nakano, Naima Carter-Monroe, Renu Virmani. (2011) Pathology of calcific aortic stenosis. Future Cardiology 7:5, 629-642
CrossRef9
Alexander Kaminski, Christian Klopsch, Peter Mark, Can Yerebakan, Peter Donndorf, Ralf Gäbel, Friederike Eisert, Stefan Hasken, Sebastian Kreitz, Aenne Glass, Stefan Jockenhövel, Nan Ma, Guenther Kundt, Andreas Liebold, Gustav Steinhoff. (2011) Autologous Valve Replacement—CD133 + Stem Cell-Plus-Fibrin Composite-Based Sprayed Cell Seeding for Intraoperative Heart Valve Tissue Engineering. Tissue Engineering Part C: Methods 17:3, 299-309
CrossRef10
Michael S Firstenberg, Subha V Raman, Jennifer Dickerson. (2011) Noninvasive imaging of prosthetic cardiac devices. Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy 9:3, 381-394
CrossRef11
Hadi Mohammadi, Kibret Mequanint. (2011) Prosthetic aortic heart valves: Modeling and design. Medical Engineering & Physics 33:2, 131-147
CrossRef12
S. Browne, S. Brody, A. Pandit. 2011. Cardiac Valves: Biologic and Synthetic. , 403-425.
CrossRef13
Sameer S Apte, Arghya Paul, Satya Prakash, Dominique Shum-Tim. (2011) Current developments in the tissue engineering of autologous heart valves: moving towards clinical use. Future Cardiology 7:1, 77-97
CrossRef14
Alexander Huber, Stephen F. Badylak. 2011. Biological Scaffolds for Regenerative Medicine. , 623-635.
CrossRef15
Ayumi Kishi, Takashi Isoyama, Itsuro Saito, Hidekazu Miura, Hidemoto Nakagawa, Akimasa Kouno, Toshiya Ono, Yusuke Inoue, Sachiko Yamaguchi, Wei Shi, Yusuke Abe, Kou Imachi, Makoto Noshiro. (2010) Use of In Vivo Insert Molding to Form a Jellyfish Valve Leaflet. Artificial Organs 34:12, 1125-1131
CrossRef16
Bas Groot, Daan Brand, Tessel N. E. Vossenberg, Andrea Warnemunde. (2010) A patient with fever, chest pain and a rapidly changing chest X-ray. International Journal of Emergency Medicine 3:4, 525-526
CrossRef17
Masashi Yamanami, Yuki Yahata, Tsutomu Tajikawa, Kenkichi Ohba, Taiji Watanabe, Keiichi Kanda, Hitoshi Yaku, Yasuhide Nakayama. (2010) Preparation of in-vivo tissue-engineered valved conduit with the sinus of Valsalva (type IV biovalve). Journal of Artificial Organs 13:2, 106-112
CrossRef18
Shital S. Patel, Amal A. Owida, Yos S. Morsi. (2010) RETRACTED ARTICLE: Microwave sterilization of bovine pericardium for heart valve applications. Journal of Artificial Organs 13:1, 24-30
CrossRef19
M. Schleicher, H.-P. Wendel, A.J. Huber, O. Fritze, U.A. Stock. (2010) In-vivo-Züchtung von Herzklappengewebe. Zeitschrift für Herz-,Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie 24:1, 6-13
CrossRef20
Joon Bum Kim, Tae Jin Yun, Cheol Hyun Chung, Suk Jung Choo, Hyun Song, Jae Won Lee. (2010) Long-term outcome of modified maze procedure combined with mitral valve surgery: Analysis of outcomes according to type of mitral valve surgery. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 139:1, 111-117
CrossRef21
Paolo Stassano, Luigi Di Tommaso, Mario Monaco, Francesco Iorio, Paolo Pepino, Nicola Spampinato, Carlo Vosa. (2009) Aortic Valve Replacement. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 54:20, 1862-1868
CrossRef22
Yasuhide Nakayama, Masashi Yamanami, Yuki Yahata, Tsutomu Tajikawa, Kenkichi Ohba, Taiji Watanabe, Keiichi Kanda, Hitoshi Yaku. (2009) Preparation of a completely autologous trileaflet valve-shaped construct by in-body tissue architecture technology. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials 91B:2, 813-818
CrossRef23
P. Schoenhagen, E. M. Tuzcu, S. R. Kapadia, M. Y. Desai, L. G. Svensson. (2009) Three-dimensional imaging of the aortic valve and aortic root with computed tomography: new standards in an era of transcatheter valve repair/implantation. European Heart Journal 30:17, 2079-2086
CrossRef24
Michael S. Sacks, Frederick J. Schoen, John E. Mayer. (2009) Bioengineering Challenges for Heart Valve Tissue Engineering. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering 11:1, 289-313
CrossRef25
Raheela Fareed Siddiqui, Johnathan Rajiv Abraham, Jagdish Butany. (2009) Bioprosthetic heart valves: modes of failure. Histopathology 55:2, 135-144
CrossRef26
Paul Schoenhagen, Alexander Hill. (2009) Transcatheter aortic valve implantation and potential role of 3D imaging. Expert Review of Medical Devices 6:4, 411-421
CrossRef27
Martina Schleicher, Hans Peter Wendel, Olaf Fritze, Ulrich A Stock. (2009) In vivo tissue engineering of heart valves: evolution of a novel concept. Regenerative Medicine 4:4, 613-619
CrossRef28
Erinn M. Joyce, Jun Liao, Frederick J. Schoen, John E. Mayer, Michael S. Sacks. (2009) Functional Collagen Fiber Architecture of the Pulmonary Heart Valve Cusp. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 87:4, 1240-1249
CrossRef29
Saket Agarwal, Sanjeev Gupta, Harpreet Singh Minhas, Muhammad Abid Geelani, Shiv Sagar Mandiye, Amit Banerjee. (2009) Comparison of outcomes after mitral valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve in patients between forty and sixty years of age. Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 25:1, 12-17
CrossRef30
Marco Ricci, Francisco Igor B. Macedo, Maria R. Suarez, Michael Brown, Julia Alba, Tomas A. Salerno. (2009) Multiple Valve Surgery with Beating Heart Technique. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 87:2, 527-531
CrossRef31
Benito Almirante, José M. Miró. (2008) Infecciones asociadas a las válvulas protésicas cardíacas, las prótesis vasculares y los dispositivos de electroestimulación cardíacos. Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica 26:10, 647-664
CrossRef32
Walter B. Eichinger, Ina M. Hettich, Daniel J. Ruzicka, Klaus Holper, Carolin Schricker, Sabine Bleiziffer, Ruediger Lange. (2008) Twenty-Year Experience With the St. Jude Medical Biocor Bioprosthesis in the Aortic Position. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 86:4, 1204-1210
CrossRef33
Hiroya Minami, Tatsuro Asada, Kunio Gan. (2008) Perivalvular leakage 25 years after initial mitral valve replacement with a Björk-Shiley prosthesis. General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 56:9, 462-464
CrossRef34
Francesco Migneco, Scott J Hollister, Ravi K Birla. (2008) Tissue-engineered heart valve prostheses: ‘state of the heart’. Regenerative Medicine 3:3, 399-419
CrossRef35
TAMAR L. MIRENSKY, CHRISTOPHER K. BREUER. (2008) The Development of Tissue-Engineered Grafts for Reconstructive Cardiothoracic Surgical Applications. Pediatric Research 63:5, 559-568
CrossRef36
Carlo de Vincentiis, Alessia B. Kunkl, Santi Trimarchi, Piervincenzo Gagliardotto, Alessandro Frigiola, Lorenzo Menicanti, Marisa Di Donato. (2008) Aortic Valve Replacement in Octogenarians: Is Biologic Valve the Unique Solution?. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 85:4, 1296-1301
CrossRef37
Hyuk Ahn, Kyung-Hwan Kim, Kwan Chang Kim, Chang Young Kim. (2008) Surgical Management of Mechanical Valve Thrombosis: Twenty-Six Years' Experience. Journal of Korean Medical Science 23:3, 378
CrossRef38
Chennazhy Krishna Prasad, Lissy K. Krishnan. (2008) Regulation of endothelial cell phenotype by biomimetic matrix coated on biomaterials for cardiovascular tissue engineering. Acta Biomaterialia 4:1, 182-191
CrossRef39
Solange D. Avakian, Max Grinberg, José A.F. Ramires, Antonio P. Mansur. (2008) Outcome of adults with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis. International Journal of Cardiology 123:3, 322-327
CrossRef40
Mark S Slaughter, Eias Jweied. (2007) Managing mechanical valves with reduced anticoagulation. Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy 5:6, 1073-1085
CrossRef41
Ahmad Kamal Aslam, Ahmad Faraz Aslam, Balendu C. Vasavada, Ijaz A. Khan. (2007) Prosthetic heart valves: Types and echocardiographic evaluation. International Journal of Cardiology 122:2, 99-110
CrossRef42
Seth H. Goldbarg, Sammy Elmariah, Marc A. Miller, Valentin Fuster. (2007) Insights Into Degenerative Aortic Valve Disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 50:13, 1205-1213
CrossRef43
Eric J. Lehr, Sarah Hermary, Ryan T. McKay, Deryck N.H. Webb, Alireza Abazari, Locksley E. McGann, James Y. Coe, Gregory S. Korbutt, David B. Ross. (2007) NMR Assessment of Me2SO in Decellularized Cryopreserved Aortic Valve Conduits. Journal of Surgical Research 141:1, 60-67
CrossRef44
Kyoko Hayashida, Keiichi Kanda, Hitoshi Yaku, Joji Ando, Yasuhide Nakayama. (2007) Development of an in vivo tissue-engineered, autologous heart valve (the biovalve): Preparation of a prototype model. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 134:1, 152-159
CrossRef45
John W. Brown, Mark Ruzmetov, Mark D. Rodefeld, Yousuf Mahomed, Mark W. Turrentine. (2007) Incidence of and Risk Factors for Pulmonary Autograft Dilation After Ross Aortic Valve Replacement. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 83:5, 1781-1789
CrossRef46
C. Krishna Prasad, C. V. Muraleedharan, Lissy K. Krishnan. (2007) Bio-mimetic composite matrix that promotes endothelial cell growth for modification of biomaterial surface. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A 80A:3, 644-654
CrossRef47
Harm H.H. Feringa, Leslee J. Shaw, Don Poldermans, Sanne Hoeks, Ernst E. van der Wall, Robert A.E. Dion, Jeroen J. Bax. (2007) Mitral Valve Repair and Replacement in Endocarditis: A Systematic Review of Literature. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 83:2, 564-570
CrossRef48
Joanne Ritchie, David Sidebotham. 2007. Valvular Heart Disease. , 158-173.
CrossRef49
Dörthe Schmidt, Anita Mol, Bernhard Odermatt, Stefan Neuenschwander, Christian Breymann, Matthias Gössi, Michele Genoni, Gregor Zund, Simon P. Hoerstrup. (2006) Engineering of Biologically Active Living Heart Valve Leaflets Using Human Umbilical Cord–Derived Progenitor Cells. Tissue Engineering 12:11, 3223-3232
CrossRef50
Dörthe Schmidt, Anita Mol, Bernhard Odermatt, Stefan Neuenschwander, Christian Breymann, Matthias Gössi, Michele Genoni, Gregor Zund, Simon P. Hoerstrup. (2006) Engineering of Biologically Active Living Heart Valve Leaflets Using Human Umbilical Cord?Derived Progenitor Cells. Tissue Engineering 0:0, 061005113615001
CrossRef51
Gordon E. Pate, Abdul Al Zubaidi, Mann Chandavimol, Christopher R. Thompson, Bradley I. Munt, John G. Webb. (2006) Percutaneous closure of prosthetic paravalvular leaks: Case series and review. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 68:4, 528-533
CrossRef52
V. Chan, W.R.E. Jamieson, E. Germann, F. Chan, R.T. Miyagishima, L.H. Burr, M.T. Janusz, H. Ling, G.J. Fradet. (2006) Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses assessed by composites of valve-related complications to 15 years after aortic valve replacement. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 131:6, 1267-1273
CrossRef53
Cora Lueders, Ralf Sodian, Mehdi Shakibaei, Roland Hetzer. (2006) Short-Term Culture of Human Neonatal Myofibroblasts Seeded Using a Novel Three-Dimensional Rotary Seeding Device. ASAIO Journal 52:3, 310-314
CrossRef54
Ivan Vesely. 2006. Heart Valve Tissue Engineering. .
CrossRef55
Kazuyoshi Takagi, Shuji Fukunaga, Akinori Nishi, Takahiro Shojima, Kazuhiro Yoshikawa, Hidetsugu Hori, Hidetoshi Akashi, Shigeaki Aoyagi. (2006) In Vivo Recellularization of Plain Decellularized Xenografts With Specific Cell Characterization in the Systemic Circulation: Histological and Immunohistochemical Study. Artificial Organs 30:4, 233-241
CrossRef56
Jian Ye, WR Eric Jamieson. (2006) The real impact of randomized clinical trials in heart valve surgery. Current Opinion in Cardiology 21:2, 106-112
CrossRef57
William G. Cheadle. (2005) The Veterans Affairs research program: scientific and clinical excellence relevant to veterans’ healthcare needs. The American Journal of Surgery 190:5, 655-661
CrossRef58
Wei Yin, Siobhain Gallocher, Leonard Pinchuk, Richard T. Schoephoerster, Jolyon Jesty, Danny Bluestein. (2005) Flow-induced Platelet Activation in a St. Jude Mechanical Heart Valve, a Trileaflet Polymeric Heart Valve, and a St. Jude Tissue Valve. Artificial Organs 29:10, 826-831
CrossRef59
Yoshimasa Sakamoto, Kazuhiro Hashimoto, Hiroshi Okuyama, Shinichi Ishii, Takahiro Inoue, Katsushi Kinouchi, Takayuki Abe. (2005) Carpentier-Edwards pericardial aortic valve in middle-aged patients comparison with the St. Jude medical valve. The Japanese Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 53:9, 465-469
CrossRef60
James L. Cox, Niv Ad, Keith Myers, Mortiz Gharib, R.C. Quijano. (2005) Tubular heart valves: A new tissue prosthesis design—Preclinical evaluation of the 3F aortic bioprosthesis. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 130:2, 520-527
CrossRef61
Marie-Theres Kasimir, Erwin Rieder, Gernot Seebacher, Ernst Wolner, Guenter Weigel, Paul Simon. (2005) Presence and Elimination of the Xenoantigen Gal (α1, 3) Gal in Tissue-Engineered Heart Valves. Tissue Engineering 11:7-8, 1274-1280
CrossRef62
W.R.E. Jamieson, O. von Lipinski, R.T. Miyagishima, L.H. Burr, M.T. Janusz, H. Ling, G.J. Fradet, F. Chan, E. Germann. (2005) Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses assessed by composites of valve-related complications to 15 years after mitral valve replacement. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 129:6, 1301-1308
CrossRef63
F. Dagenais, P. Cartier, P. Voisine, D. Desaulniers, J. Perron, R. Baillot, G. Raymond, J. Métras, D. Doyle, P. Mathieu. (2005) Which biologic valve should we select for the 45- to 65-year-old age group requiring aortic valve replacement?. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 129:5, 1041-1049
CrossRef64
Naomi F. Botkin, Paula S. Seth, Gerard P. Aurigemma. (2005) Asymptomatic valvular disease: Who benefits from surgery?. Current Cardiology Reports 7:2, 87-93
CrossRef65
Christopher K. Breuer, Bret A. Mettler, Tiffany Anthony, Virna L. Sales, Frederick J. Schoen, John E. Mayer. (2004) Application of Tissue-Engineering Principles toward the Development of a Semilunar Heart Valve Substitute. Tissue Engineering 10:11-12, 1725-1736
CrossRef66
Antoine G. Sreih, Rahul Mehta. (2004) Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis Presenting as Loss of the Metallic Click Sound. Southern Medical Journal 97:10, 1018-1019
CrossRef67
William T. Smith, T. Bruce Ferguson, Thomas Ryan, Carolyn K. Landolfo, Eric D. Peterson. (2004) Should coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients with mild or moderate aortic stenosis undergo concomitant aortic valve replacement?. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 44:6, 1241-1247
CrossRef68
D.Dean Potter, Thoralf M Sundt, Kenton J Zehr, Joseph A Dearani, Richard C Daly, Charles J Mullany, Christopher G.A McGregor, Francisco J Puga, Hartzell V Schaff, Thomas A Orszulak. (2004) Risk of repeat mitral valve replacement for failed mitral valve prostheses. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 78:1, 67-72
CrossRef69
Steven J. Phillips. (2004) Selecting the Best Heart Valve for Your Patient: Mechanical or Tissue. The American Heart Hospital Journal 2:3, 149-152
CrossRef70
Nicolas Dürrleman, Michel Pellerin, Denis Bouchard, Yves Hébert, Raymond Cartier, Louis P Perrault, Arsène Basmadjian, Michel Carrier. (2004) Prosthetic valve thrombosis: twenty-year experience at the montreal heart institute. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 127:5, 1388-1392
CrossRef71
Stefan Neuenschwander, Simon P. Hoerstrup. (2004) Heart valve tissue engineering. Transplant Immunology 12:3-4, 359-365
CrossRef72
Nana Rezai, Thomas J. Podor, Bruce M. McManus. (2004) Bone Marrow Cells in the Repair and Modulation of Heart and Blood Vessels: Emerging Opportunities in Native and Engineered Tissue and Biomechanical Materials. Artificial Organs 28:2, 142-151
CrossRef73
Rosario V Freeman, Gretchen Crittenden, Catherine Otto. (2004) Acquired aortic stenosis. Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy 2:1, 107-116
CrossRef74
Ko Bando, Junjiro Kobayashi, Mitsuhiro Hirata, Toshihiko Satoh, Kazuo Niwaya, Osamu Tagusari, Satoshi Nakatani, Toshikatsu Yagihara, Soichiro Kitamura. (2003) Early and late stroke after mitral valve replacement with a mechanical prosthesis: risk factor analysis of a 24-year experience. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 126:2, 358-363
CrossRef75
Andrew J Murday, Andreas Hochstitzky, Judith Mansfield, Julie Miles, Beverley Taylor, Eileen Whitley, Tom Treasure. (2003) A prospective controlled trial of st. jude versus starr edwards aortic and mitral valve prostheses. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 76:1, 66-73
CrossRef76
A.Ruchan Akar, Adam Szafranek, Christos Alexiou, Robert Janas, Marek J Jasinski, Justiaan Swanevelder, Andrzej W Sosnowski. (2002) Use of stentless xenografts in the aortic position: determinants of early and late outcome. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 74:5, 1450-1457
CrossRef77
Adolf W Karchmer, David L Longworth. (2002) Infections of intracardiac devices. Infectious Disease Clinics of North America 16:2, 477-505
CrossRef78
Robert M. Califf. (2002) The need for a national infrastructure to improve the rational use of therapeutics. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 11:4, 319-327
CrossRef79
H Giamarellou. (2002) Nosocomial cardiac infections. Journal of Hospital Infection 50:2, 91-105
CrossRef80
Julie R Fuchs, Boris A Nasseri, Joseph P Vacanti. (2001) Tissue engineering: a 21st century solution to surgical reconstruction. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 72:2, 577-591
CrossRef81
Heinrich Körtke, Reiner Körfer. (2001) International normalized ratio self-management after mechanical heart valve replacement: is an early start advantageous?. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 72:1, 44-48
CrossRef82
Michel Carrier, Michel Pellerin, Louis P Perrault, Pierre Pagé, Yves Hébert, Raymond Cartier, Ihor Dyrda, L.Conrad Pelletier. (2001) Aortic valve replacement with mechanical and biologic prostheses in middle-aged patients. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 71:5, S253-S256
CrossRef83
Pushpinder Sidhu, Hugh O’Kane, Niaz Ali, Dennis J Gladstone, Mazin A.I Sarsam, Gianfranco Campalani, Simon W MacGowan. (2001) Mechanical or bioprosthetic valves in the elderly: a 20-year comparison. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 71:5, S257-S260
CrossRef84
Nancy J.O. Birkmeyer, Gerald T. O???Connor, John C. Baldwin. (2001) Aortic valve replacement: current clinical practice and opportunities for quality improvement. Current Opinion in Cardiology 16:2, 152-157
CrossRef85
Tse Chung Lee, Ronald J Midura, Vincent C Hascall, Ivan Vesely. (2001) The effect of elastin damage on the mechanics of the aortic valve. Journal of Biomechanics 34:2, 203-210
CrossRef86
(2001) Predictors of Outcome in Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis. New England Journal of Medicine 344:3, 227-229
Full Text87
Nancy J.O Birkmeyer, John D Birkmeyer, Anna N.A Tosteson, Gary L Grunkemeier, Charles A.S Marrin, Gerald T O’Connor. (2000) Prosthetic valve type for patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: a decision analysis11The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government.. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 70:6, 1946-1952
CrossRef88
Muhamed Saric, Itzhak Kronzon. (2000) Aortic Stenosis in the Elderly. The American Journal of Geriatric Cardiology 9:6, 321-330
CrossRef89
Claudia Schmidtke, J.F.Matthias Bechtel, Axel Noetzold, Hans-Hinrich Sievers. (2000) Up to seven years of experience with the Ross procedure in patients >60 years of age. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 36:4, 1173-1177
CrossRef90
Karl Hammermeister, Gulshan K Sethi, William G Henderson, Frederick L Grover, Charles Oprian, Shahbudin H Rahimtoola. (2000) Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 36:4, 1152-1158
CrossRef91
B Kassaï. (2000) Comparison of bioprosthesis and mechanical valves, a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Cardiovascular Surgery 8:6, 477-483
CrossRef92
Rosenhek, Raphael, Binder, Thomas, Porenta, Gerold, Lang, Irene, Christ, Günther, Schemper, Michael, Maurer, Gerald, Baumgartner, Helmut, . (2000) Predictors of Outcome in Severe, Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis. New England Journal of Medicine 343:9, 611-617
Full Text93
Ralf Sodian, Simon P Hoerstrup, Jason S Sperling, Sabine H Daebritz, David P Martin, Frederick J Schoen, Joseph P Vacanti, John E Mayer. (2000) Tissue engineering of heart valves: in vitro experiences. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 70:1, 140-144
CrossRef94
Ralf Sodian, Jason S. Sperling, David P. Martin, Ana Egozy, Ulrich Stock, John E. Mayer, Joseph P. Vacanti. (2000) Technical Report: Fabrication of a Trileaflet Heart Valve Scaffold from a Polyhydroxyalkanoate Biopolyester for Use in Tissue Engineering. Tissue Engineering 6:2, 183-188
CrossRef95
Ralf Sodian, Simon P. Hoerstrup, Jason S. Sperling, David P. Martin, Sabine Daebritz, John E. Mayer, Joseph P. Vacanti. (2000) Evaluation of Biodegradable, Three-Dimensional Matrices for Tissue Engineering of Heart Valves. ASAIO Journal 46:1, 107-110
CrossRef96
G. Inselmann, R. Jahns, A. J. Capell, P. Eigel, U. Nellessen, J. Ludwig. (2000) Rest and exercise hemodynamics before and after valve replacement-A combined doppler/catheter study. Clinical Cardiology 23:1, 32-38
CrossRef97
Frederick J. Schoen, Robert J. Levy. (1999) Tissue heart valves: Current challenges and future research perspectives. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 47:4, 439-465
CrossRef98
Michael A. Gatzoulis. (1999) Ross procedure: the treatment of choice for aortic valve disease?. International Journal of Cardiology 71:3, 205-206
CrossRef99
Tom Treasure. (1999) Rethink on biological aortic valves for the elderly. The Lancet 354:9183, 964-965
CrossRef100
Tirone E. David. (1999) Surgery of the aortic valve. Current Problems in Surgery 36:6, 421-501
CrossRef101
Blase A Carabello. (1999) Aortic regurgitation. Evidence-based Cardiovascular Medicine 3:1, 2-3
CrossRef102
Kookmin M. Kim, Guillermo A. Herrera, Harold D. Battarbee. (1999) Role of Glutaraldehyde in Calcification of Porcine Aortic Valve Fibroblasts. The American Journal of Pathology 154:3, 843-852
CrossRef103
Nicola Spampinato, Cesare Gagliardi, Donato Pantaleo, Ludovico Fimiani, Raimondo Ascione, Fabio De Robertis, Antonino Musumeci, Paolo Stassano. (1998) Bioprosthetic replacement after bioprosthesis failure: a hazardous choice?. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 66:6, S68-S72
CrossRef104
Steven S Khan, Aurelio Chaux, Carlos Blanche, Robert M Kass, Wen Cheng, Gregory P Fontana, Alfredo Trento. (1998) A 20-year experience with the Hancock porcine xenograft in the elderly. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 66:6, S35-S39
CrossRef105
Paul H Neville, Michel R Aupart, Frank F Diemont, Agnes L Sirinelli, Eric M Lemoine, Michel A Marchand. (1998) Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis in aortic or mitral position: a 12-year experience. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 66:6, S143-S147
CrossRef106
RobertO. Bonow, Blase Carabello, AntonioC. de Leon, L.Henry Edmunds, BradleyJ. Fedderly, MichaelD. Freed, WilliamH. Gaasch, CharlesR. McKay, RickA. Nishimura, PatrickT. O’Gara, RobertA. O’Rourke, ShahbudinH. Rahimtoola, JamesL. Ritchie, MelvinD. Cheitlin, KimA. Eagle, TimothyJ. Gardner, Arthur Garson, RaymondJ. Gibbons, RobertA. O’Rourke, RichardO. Russell, ThomasJ. Ryan, SidneyC. Smith. (1998) ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 32:5, 1486-1582
CrossRef107
Simon P Hoerstrup, Gregor Zünd, Andreina Schoeberlein, Qing Ye, Paul R Vogt, Marko I Turina. (1998) Fluorescence activated cell sorting: A reliable method in tissue engineering of a bioprosthetic heart valve. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 66:5, 1653-1657
CrossRef108
Rajiv Maraj, Larry E. Jacobs, Alfred Ioli, Morris N. Kotler. (1998) Evaluation of hemolysis in patients with prosthetic heart valves. Clinical Cardiology 21:6, 387-392
CrossRef109
Odd Bech-Hanssen, Ingemar Wallentin, Sture Larsson, Kenneth Caidahl. (1998) Reference Doppler Echocardiographic Values for St. Jude Medical, Omnicarbon, and Biocor Prosthetic Valves in the Aortic Position. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography 11:5, 466-477
CrossRef110
Eugene A. Grossi, Aubrey C. Galloway, Jeffrey S. Miller, Greg H. Ribakove, Alfred T. Culliford, Rick Esposito, Julie Delianides, Patricia M. Buttenheim, F.Gregory Baumann, Frank C. Spencer, Stephen B. Colvin. (1998) Valve Repair Versus Replacement For Mitral Insufficiency: When Is A Mechanical Valve Still Indicated?. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 115:2, 389-396
CrossRef111
José M Bernal, José M Rabasa, Francisco Gutierrez-Garcia, Carlos Morales, J.Francisco Nistal, José M Revuelta. (1998) The CarboMedics Valve: Experience With 1,049 Implants. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 65:1, 137-143
CrossRef112
Francesco Santini, Cornelius Dyke, Sue Edwards, George Stavri, Mariano Feccia, Hasnat Khan, Emma Birks, Magdi H. Yacoub. (1997) Pulmonary autograft versus homograft replacement of the aortic valve: A prospective randomized trial. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 113:5, 894-900
CrossRef113
Suzanne M. Rödler, MD, Anton Moritz, MD, Wolfgang Schreiner, MD, Adelheid End, MD, Peter Dubsky, MD, Ernst Wolner, MD. (1997) Five-Year Follow-up After Heart Valve Replacement With the CarboMedics Bileaflet Prosthesis. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 63:4, 1018-1025
CrossRef114
M.R. Aupart, P.H. Neville, S. Hammami, A.L. Sirinelli, Y.A. Meurisse, M.A. Marchand. (1997) Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valves in the mitral position: Ten-year follow-up. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 113:3, 492-498
CrossRef115
Steven L. Goodman, Katherine S. Tweden, Ralph M. Albrecht. (1996) Platelet interaction with pyrolytic carbon heart-valve leaflets. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 32:2, 249-258
CrossRef116
Jean-Louis Trouillet, Andres Scheimberg, Albert Vuagnat, Jean-Yves Fagon, Jean Chastre, Claude Gibert. (1996) Long-term outcome and quality of life of patients requiring multidisciplinary intensive care unit admission after cardiac operations. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 112:4, 926-934
CrossRef117
Jose Maria Oliver, Pastora Gallego, Ana Gonzalez, Francisco Javier Dominguez, Carlos Gamallo, Jose Maria Mesa. (1996) Bioprosthetic mitral valve thrombosis: Clinical profile, transesophageal echocardiographic features, and follow-up after anticoagulant therapy. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography 9:5, 691-699
CrossRef118
Vongpatanasin, Wanpen, Hillis, L. David, Lange, Richard A., . (1996) Prosthetic Heart Valves. New England Journal of Medicine 335:6, 407-416
Full Text119
C. K. Breuer, T. Shin'oka, R. E. Tanel, G. Zund, D. J. Mooney, P. X. Ma, T. Miura, S. Colan, R. Langer, J. E. Mayer, J. P. Vacanti. (1996) Tissue engineering lamb heart valve leaflets. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 50:5, 562-567
CrossRef120
Richard A. Hopkins, Aurelio Reyes, Deborah A. Imperato, Gillian A. Carpenter, Jeffrey L. Myers, Kerry A. Murphy. (1996) Ventricular Outflow Tract Reconstructions with Cryopreserved Cardiac Valve Homografts. Annals of Surgery 223:5, 544-554
CrossRef121
B.Martin Eicke, Viola Barth, Bornes Kukowski, Gerald Werner, Walter Paulus. (1996) Cardiac microembolism: prevalence and clinical outcome. Journal of the Neurological Sciences 136:1-2, 143-147
CrossRef122
Michel R. Aupart, Agnes L. Sirinelli, Frank F. Diemont, Yvon A. Meurisse, Xavier B. Dreyfus, Michel A. Marchand. (1996) The last generation of pericardial valves in the aortic position: Ten-year follow-up in 589 patients. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 61:2, 615-620
CrossRef123
I Vesely. (1995) New concepts in the design and use of biological prosthetic valves. Cardiovascular Pathology 4:4, 287-291
CrossRef124
Hans A. Verheul, Renée B.A. van den Brink, Berto J. Bouma, Gerard Hoedemaker, Adrian C. Moulijn, Egbart Dekker, Patrick Bossuyt, Arend J. Dunning. (1995) Analysis of risk factors for excess mortality after aortic valve replacement. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 26:5, 1280-1286
CrossRef125
Stephen Westaby, Naomali Amarasena, Oliver Ormerod, G.A. Chandima Amarasena, Ravi Pillai. (1995) Aortic valve replacement with the freestyle stentless xenograft. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 60, S422-S427
CrossRef126
Pia S.U. Mykén, Kenneth Caidahl, Pär Larsson, Sture Larsson, Ingemar Wallentin, Hkan E. Berggren. (1995) Mechanical versus biological valve prosthesis: A ten-year comparison regarding function and quality of life. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 60, S447-S452
CrossRef127
Ivan Vesely, Derek R. Boughner, Jennifer Leeson-Dietrich. (1995) Bioprosthetic valve tissue viscoelasticity: Implications on accelerated pulse duplicator testing. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 60, S379-S383
CrossRef128
Lynn B. McGrath, Javier Fernandez, Glenn W. Laub, William A. Anderson, Bridget M. Bailey, Chao Chen. (1995) Perioperative events in patients with failed mechanical and bioprosthetic valves. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 60, S475-S478
CrossRef129
Michael Scott, Ivan Vesely. (1995) Aortic valve cusp microstructure: The role of elastin. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 60, S391-S394
CrossRef130
Klaus Holper, Michael Wottke, Thomas Lewe, Lucia Baumer, Hans Meisner, Sung-Un Paek, Fritz Sebening. (1995) Bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in the elderly: Benefits and risks. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 60, S443-S446
CrossRef131
KHIDIR OSMAN, BERT WILLMAN, NAVIN C. NANDA, KEE-SIK KIM, ALBERT D. PACIFICO. (1995) Transesophageal Echocardiographic Findings of a Dehisced Duran Mitral Annuloplasty Ring. Echocardiography 12:4, 441-446
CrossRef132
Friedrich W. Mohr, Thomas Walther, Mersa Baryalei, Volkmar Falk, Rüdiger Autschbach, Albert Scheidt, Harald Dalichau. (1995) The Toronto SPV bioprosthesis: One-year results in 100 patients. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 60:1, 171-175
CrossRef133
Ellis L. Jones, William S. Weintraub, Joseph M. Craver, Robert A. Guyton, Yannan Shen. (1994) Interaction of age and coronary disease after valve replacement: Implications for valve selection. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 58:2, 378-385
CrossRef134
Frederick J. Schoen, Robert J. Levy. (1994) Pathology of Substitute Heart Valves: New Concepts and Developments. Journal of Cardiac Surgery 9:s2, 222-227
CrossRef135
Ellis L. Jones. (1994) Mitral Valve Replacement: Indications, Choice of Valve Prosthesis, Results, and Long-Term Morbidity of Porcine and Mechanical Valves. Journal of Cardiac Surgery 9:s2, 218-221
CrossRef136
(1993) Outcomes after Heart-Valve Replacement. New England Journal of Medicine 329:17, 1278-1278
Full Text137
Harrington, John T., . (1993) My Three Valves. New England Journal of Medicine 328:18, 1345-1346
Full Text
- Letters
