719 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16116876)
1. Biological versus mechanical aortic prosthesis? A nineteen-year comparison in a propensity-matched population.
Bottio T; Rizzoli G; Caprili L; Testolin L; Thiene G; Gerosa G
J Heart Valve Dis; 2005 Jul; 14(4):493-500. PubMed ID: 16116876
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Simultaneous aortic and mitral valve replacement: predictors of adverse outcome.
Kuwaki K; Tsukamoto M; Komatsu K; Morishita K; Sakata J; Abe T
J Heart Valve Dis; 2003 Mar; 12(2):169-76. PubMed ID: 12701788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Medtronic mosaic porcine bioprosthesis: investigational center experience to six years.
Jamieson WR; Fradet GJ; MacNab JS; Burr LH; Stanford EA; Janusz MT; Abel JG; Germann E; Cheung A
J Heart Valve Dis; 2005 Jan; 14(1):54-63. PubMed ID: 15700437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Aortic valve replacement with the Hancock standard, Björk-Shiley, and Lillehei-Kaster prostheses. A comparison based on follow-up from 1 to 15 years.
Milano AD; Bortolotti U; Mazzucco A; Guerra F; Magni A; Gallucci V
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1989 Jul; 98(1):37-47. PubMed ID: 2739424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Seventeen-year experience with the St. Jude medical biocor porcine bioprosthesis.
Mykén PS
J Heart Valve Dis; 2005 Jul; 14(4):486-92. PubMed ID: 16116875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Performance of the Carpentier-Edwards SAV and Hancock-II porcine bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement.
Jamieson WR; David TE; Feindel CM; Miyagishima RT; Germann E
J Heart Valve Dis; 2002 May; 11(3):424-30. PubMed ID: 12056738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Experience with low-dose aspirin as thromboprophylaxis for the Tissuemed porcine aortic bioprosthesis: a survey of five years' experience.
Goldsmith I; Lip GY; Mukundan S; Rosin MD
J Heart Valve Dis; 1998 Sep; 7(5):574-9. PubMed ID: 9793859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Fifteen years follow up with the St. Jude Medical Biocor porcine bioprosthesis.
Mykén P; Bech-Hanssen O; Phipps B; Caidahl K
J Heart Valve Dis; 2000 May; 9(3):415-22. PubMed ID: 10888100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses in age group 61-70 years.
Prasongsukarn K; Jamieson WR; Lichtenstein SV
J Heart Valve Dis; 2005 Jul; 14(4):501-8, 510-1; discussion 509. PubMed ID: 16116877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The homograft aortic valve: a 29-year, 99.3% follow up of 1,022 valve replacements.
O'Brien MF; Harrocks S; Stafford EG; Gardner MA; Pohlner PG; Tesar PJ; Stephens F
J Heart Valve Dis; 2001 May; 10(3):334-44; discussion 335. PubMed ID: 11380096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Seventeen-year clinical results of 1,037 Mitroflow pericardial heart valve prostheses in the aortic position.
Yankah CA; Schubel J; Buz S; Siniawski H; Hetzer R
J Heart Valve Dis; 2005 Mar; 14(2):172-9; discussion 179-80. PubMed ID: 15792176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The potential for normal long term survival and morbidity rates after valve replacement for aortic stenosis.
Lund O; Magnussen K; Knudsen M; Pilegaard H; Nielsen TT; Albrechtsen OK
J Heart Valve Dis; 1996 May; 5(3):258-67. PubMed ID: 8793673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Lack of durability of the Mitroflow valve does not affect survival.
Houel R; Le Besnerais P; Soustelle C; Kirsch M; Hillion ML; Loisance D
J Heart Valve Dis; 1999 Jul; 8(4):368-74; discussion 374-5. PubMed ID: 10461235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Five-year follow up of the ATS mechanical heart valve.
Emery RW; Krogh CC; Jones DJ; Nicoloff DM; Blake DP; Arom KV
J Heart Valve Dis; 2004 Mar; 13(2):231-8. PubMed ID: 15086262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Aspire porcine bioprosthesis: ten years' experience.
Hadjinikolaou L; Boehm MC; Ganner C; Kendall SW; Rosin MD; Goldsmith IR; Spyt TJ
J Heart Valve Dis; 2005 Jan; 14(1):47-53. PubMed ID: 15700436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Allografts for aortic valve or root replacement: insights from an 18-year single-center prospective follow-up study.
Takkenberg JJ; Klieverik LM; Bekkers JA; Kappetein AP; Roos JW; Eijkemans MJ; Bogers AJ
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2007 May; 31(5):851-9. PubMed ID: 17350857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Influence of patient-prosthesis mismatch on long-term results after aortic valve replacement with a stented bioprosthesis.
Frapier JM; Rouvière P; Razcka F; Aymard T; Albat B; Chaptal PA
J Heart Valve Dis; 2002 Jul; 11(4):543-51. PubMed ID: 12150304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Re-do aortic valve replacement: does a previous homograft influence the operative outcome?
Kumar P; Athanasiou T; Ali A; Nair S; Oz BS; DeSouza A; Moat N; Shore DF; Pepper JR
J Heart Valve Dis; 2004 Nov; 13(6):904-12; discussion 912-3. PubMed ID: 15597580
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Outcome after aortic valve replacement in young adults: is patient profile more important than prosthesis type?
Klieverik LM; Noorlander M; Takkenberg JJ; Kappetein AP; Bekkers JA; van Herwerden LA; Bogers AJ
J Heart Valve Dis; 2006 Jul; 15(4):479-87; discussion 487. PubMed ID: 16901039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. CarboMedics mechanical prosthesis: performance at eight years.
Jamieson WR; Fradet GJ; Miyagishima RT; Henderson C; Brownlee RT; Zhang J; Germann E
J Heart Valve Dis; 2000 Sep; 9(5):678-87. PubMed ID: 11041184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
