241 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23891407)
1. Mechanical prosthesis is reasonable for mitral valve replacement in patients approximately 65 years of age.
Nishida T; Sonoda H; Oishi Y; Tanoue Y; Nakashima A; Shiokawa Y; Tominaga R
Ann Thorac Surg; 2013 Nov; 96(5):1614-20. PubMed ID: 23891407
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Structural valve deterioration in mitral replacement surgery: comparison of Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular porcine and perimount pericardial bioprostheses.
Eric Jamieson WR; Marchand MA; Pelletier CL; Norton R; Pellerin M; Dubiel TW; Aupart MR; Daenen WJ; Holden MP; David TE; Ryba EA; Anderson WN
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1999 Aug; 118(2):297-304. PubMed ID: 10425003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Mitral valve disease: if the mitral valve is not reparable/failed repair, is bioprosthesis suitable for replacement?
Jamieson WR; Gudas VM; Burr LH; Janusz MT; Fradet GJ; Ling H; Germann E; Lichtenstein SV
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2009 Jan; 35(1):104-10. PubMed ID: 19056294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses assessed by composites of valve-related complications to 15 years after mitral valve replacement.
Jamieson WR; von Lipinski O; Miyagishima RT; Burr LH; Janusz MT; Ling H; Fradet GJ; Chan F; Germann E
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2005 Jun; 129(6):1301-8. PubMed ID: 15942570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Carpentier-Edwards porcine bioprostheses: clinical performance assessed by actual analysis.
Jamieson WR; Miyagishima RT; Burr LH; Lichtenstein SV; Fradet GJ; Janusz MT
J Heart Valve Dis; 2000 Jul; 9(4):530-5. PubMed ID: 10947046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Aortic and mitral valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: 10-year results.
Murakami T; Eishi K; Nakano S; Kobayashi J; Sasako Y; Isobe F; Kosakai Y; Kito Y; Kawashima Y
J Heart Valve Dis; 1996 Jan; 5(1):45-9. PubMed ID: 8834725
[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. Actuarial versus actual freedom from structural valve deterioration with the Carpentier-Edwards porcine bioprostheses.
Jamieson WR; Burr LH; Miyagishima RT; Germann E; Anderson WN
Can J Cardiol; 1999 Sep; 15(9):973-8. PubMed ID: 10504178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Twenty-year clinical experience with porcine bioprostheses.
Fann JI; Miller DC; Moore KA; Mitchell RS; Oyer PE; Stinson EB; Robbins RC; Reitz BA; Shumway NE
Ann Thorac Surg; 1996 Nov; 62(5):1301-11; discussion 1311-2. PubMed ID: 8893561
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Randomized, prospective assessment of bioprosthetic valve durability. Hancock versus Carpentier-Edwards valves.
Sarris GE; Robbins RC; Miller DC; Mitchell RS; Moore KA; Stinson EB; Oyer PE; Reitz BA; Shumway NE
Circulation; 1993 Nov; 88(5 Pt 2):II55-64. PubMed ID: 8222197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Porcine versus pericardial bioprostheses: eleven-year follow up of a prospective randomized trial.
Chaudhry MA; Raco L; Muriithi EW; Bernacca GM; Tolland MM; Wheatley DJ
J Heart Valve Dis; 2000 May; 9(3):429-37; discussion 437-8. PubMed ID: 10888102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Late results after mitral valve replacement].
Nakano K
Nihon Geka Gakkai Zasshi; 2001 Apr; 102(4):315-9. PubMed ID: 11344683
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Structural durability in Carpentier Edwards Standard bioprosthesis in the mitral position: a 20-year experience.
Corbineau H; Du Haut Cilly FB; Langanay T; Verhoye JP; Leguerrier A
J Heart Valve Dis; 2001 Jul; 10(4):443-8. PubMed ID: 11499587
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Mechanical versus biological valve prosthesis in the mitral position: a 10-year follow up of St. Jude Medical and Biocor valves.
Demirag M; Kirali K; Omeroglu SN; Mansuroglu D; Akinci E; Ipek G; Berki T; Gürbüz A; Isik O; Yakut C
J Heart Valve Dis; 2001 Jan; 10(1):78-83. PubMed ID: 11206772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Eighteen-year follow up after Hancock II bioprosthesis insertion.
Legarra JJ; Llorens R; Catalan M; Segura I; Trenor AM; de Buruaga JS; Rabago G; Sarralde A
J Heart Valve Dis; 1999 Jan; 8(1):16-24. PubMed ID: 10096477
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Age as a determinant for selection of porcine bioprostheses for cardiac valve replacement: experience with Carpentier-Edwards standard bioprosthesis.
Jamieson WR; Tyers GF; Janusz MT; Miyagishima RT; Munro AI; Ling H; Burr LH; Tutassaura H
Can J Cardiol; 1991 May; 7(4):181-8. PubMed ID: 2070287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses assessed by composites of valve-related complications to 15 years after aortic valve replacement.
Chan V; Jamieson WR; Germann E; Chan F; Miyagishima RT; Burr LH; Janusz MT; Ling H; Fradet GJ
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2006 Jun; 131(6):1267-73. PubMed ID: 16733156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
