251 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22365259)
1. Mechanical tricuspid valve replacement is not superior in patients younger than 65 years who need long-term anticoagulation.
Hwang HY; Kim KH; Kim KB; Ahn H
Ann Thorac Surg; 2012 Apr; 93(4):1154-60. PubMed ID: 22365259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Mechanical valve replacement versus bioprosthetic valve replacement in the tricuspid valve position.
Cho WC; Park CB; Kim JB; Jung SH; Chung CH; Choo SJ; Lee JW
J Card Surg; 2013 May; 28(3):212-7. PubMed ID: 23488674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Propensity score matching analysis of mechanical versus bioprosthetic tricuspid valve replacements.
Hwang HY; Kim KH; Kim KB; Ahn H
Ann Thorac Surg; 2014 Apr; 97(4):1294-9. PubMed ID: 24565401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Long-term clinical results of tricuspid valve replacement.
Chang BC; Lim SH; Yi G; Hong YS; Lee S; Yoo KJ; Kang MS; Cho BK
Ann Thorac Surg; 2006 Apr; 81(4):1317-23, discussion 1323-4. PubMed ID: 16564264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Tricuspid valve replacement: bioprostheses are preferable.
Dalrymple-Hay MJ; Leung Y; Ohri SK; Haw MP; Ross JK; Livesey SA; Monro JL
J Heart Valve Dis; 1999 Nov; 8(6):644-8. PubMed ID: 10616242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Twenty-five year outcomes of tricuspid valve replacement comparing mechanical and biologic prostheses.
Garatti A; Nano G; Bruschi G; Canziani A; Colombo T; Frigiola A; Martinelli L; Menicanti L
Ann Thorac Surg; 2012 Apr; 93(4):1146-53. PubMed ID: 22342993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Long-term outcomes of tricuspid valve replacement in the current era.
Filsoufi F; Anyanwu AC; Salzberg SP; Frankel T; Cohn LH; Adams DH
Ann Thorac Surg; 2005 Sep; 80(3):845-50. PubMed ID: 16122441
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic valve replacement in middle-aged patients.
Kulik A; Bédard P; Lam BK; Rubens FD; Hendry PJ; Masters RG; Mesana TG; Ruel M
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2006 Sep; 30(3):485-91. PubMed ID: 16857373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Tricuspid valve replacement: clinical long-term results for acquired isolated tricuspid valve regurgitation.
Maleszka A; Kleikamp G; Koerfer R
J Heart Valve Dis; 2004 Nov; 13(6):957-61. PubMed ID: 15597590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Bioprosthetic versus mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement in the elderly.
Davis EA; Greene PS; Cameron DE; Gott VI; Laschinger JC; Stuart RS; Sussman MS; Watkins L; Baumgartner WA
Circulation; 1996 Nov; 94(9 Suppl):II121-5. PubMed ID: 8901731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Mid- to long-term outcome comparison of the Medtronic Hancock II and bi-leaflet mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 60 years of age: a propensity-matched analysis.
Wang Y; Chen S; Shi J; Li G; Dong N
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg; 2016 Mar; 22(3):280-6. PubMed ID: 26675564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Is early antithrombotic therapy necessary after tissue mitral valve replacement?
Colli A; D'Amico R; Mestres CA; Pomar JL; Cámara ML; Ruyra X; Mulet J
J Heart Valve Dis; 2010 Jul; 19(4):405-11. PubMed ID: 20845885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [Tricuspid valve replacement and anticoagulation therapy: a report of 70 cases].
Dong L; Xiao XJ; Zhang EY; Hu J; Yuan HS; Shi YK; Ren L
Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2008 Dec; 46(24):1910-2. PubMed ID: 19134385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Is early antithrombotic therapy necessary in patients with bioprosthetic aortic valves in normal sinus rhythm?
ElBardissi AW; DiBardino DJ; Chen FY; Yamashita MH; Cohn LH
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2010 May; 139(5):1137-45. PubMed ID: 20303508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70 years: improved outcome with mechanical versus biologic prostheses.
Brown ML; Schaff HV; Lahr BD; Mullany CJ; Sundt TM; Dearani JA; McGregor CG; Orszulak TA
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2008 Apr; 135(4):878-84; discussion 884. PubMed ID: 18374773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The valve of choice in elderly patients and its influence on quality of life: a long-term comparative study.
Kurlansky PA; Williams DB; Traad EA; Carrillo RG; Schor JS; Zucker M; Ebra G
J Heart Valve Dis; 2006 Mar; 15(2):180-9; discussion 190. PubMed ID: 16607898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Aortic valve replacement: choice between mechanical valves and bioprostheses.
Silberman S; Oren A; Dotan M; Merin O; Fink D; Deeb M; Bitran D
J Card Surg; 2008; 23(4):299-306. PubMed ID: 18462345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Is tricuspid valve replacement a catastrophic operation?
Sung K; Park PW; Park KH; Jun TG; Lee YT; Yang JH; Kim WS; Hwang J
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2009 Nov; 36(5):825-9. PubMed ID: 19589692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Freestyle aortic root bioprosthesis is a suitable alternative for aortic root replacement in elderly patients: a propensity score study.
Mazzola A; Di Mauro M; Pellone F; Faragalli F; Villani C; Di Eusanio M; Gizzi G; Lemme E; Gregorini R; Romano S; Penco M
Ann Thorac Surg; 2012 Oct; 94(4):1185-90. PubMed ID: 22748645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Simultaneous aortic and mitral valve replacement in children: time-related outcomes and risk factors.
Alsoufi B; Al-Halees Z; Fadel B; Al-Wesabi A; Al-Ahmadi M; Joufan M; Siblini G; Canver CC
J Heart Valve Dis; 2010 May; 19(3):341-8. PubMed ID: 20583397
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
