These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2980023)

  • 1. Use of the valvular resistance in the separation of normal and stenotic Hancock mitral valves.
    Khan SS; Czer LS; Gray RJ; Matloff J
    J Card Surg; 1988 Sep; 3(3):241-6. PubMed ID: 2980023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Hemodynamic differentiation of pathologic and physiologic stenosis in mitral porcine bioprostheses.
    Czer LS; Gray RJ; Bateman TM; DeRobertis MA; Resser K; Chaux A; Matloff JM
    J Am Coll Cardiol; 1986 Feb; 7(2):284-94. PubMed ID: 3944346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Hemodynamic comparison of Hancock and Carpentier-Edwards mitral bioprosthetic valves.
    Khan S; Mitchell RS; Derby GC; Oyer PE; Miller DC
    Circulation; 1990 Nov; 82(5 Suppl):IV75-81. PubMed ID: 2225438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Mitral valve resistance as a hemodynamic indicator in mitral stenosis.
    Beyer RW; Olmos A; Bermúdez RF; Noll HE
    Am J Cardiol; 1992 Mar; 69(8):775-9. PubMed ID: 1546652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Doppler assessment of prosthetic valve orifice area. An in vitro study.
    Baumgartner H; Khan SS; DeRobertis M; Czer LS; Maurer G
    Circulation; 1992 Jun; 85(6):2275-83. PubMed ID: 1591841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Doppler hemodynamic evaluation of prosthetic (Starr-Edwards and Björk-Shiley) and bioprosthetic (Hancock and Carpentier-Edwards) cardiac valves.
    Williams GA; Labovitz AJ
    Am J Cardiol; 1985 Aug; 56(4):325-32. PubMed ID: 4025173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. In vitro hydrodynamic comparison of mitral valve prostheses at high flow rates.
    Gabbay S; McQueen DM; Yellin EL; Becker RM; Frater RW
    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1978 Dec; 76(6):771-87. PubMed ID: 713584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Doppler echocardiography in assessing mechanical and biological heart valve prostheses].
    Minardi G; Di Segni M; Boccardi L; Ferrari O; Giovannini E
    G Ital Cardiol; 1988 Feb; 18(2):121-34. PubMed ID: 3410201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Doppler echocardiographic evaluation of Hancock and Björk-Shiley prosthetic values.
    Sagar KB; Wann LS; Paulsen WH; Romhilt DW
    J Am Coll Cardiol; 1986 Mar; 7(3):681-7. PubMed ID: 3950245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. In vitro hydrodynamic comparison of mitral valve bioprostheses.
    Gabbay S; McQueen DM; Yellin EL; Frater RW
    Circulation; 1979 Aug; 60(2 Pt 2):62-70. PubMed ID: 445776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Differences in Hancock and Carpentier-Edwards porcine xenograft aortic valve hemodynamics. Effect of valve size.
    Khan SS; Mitchell RS; Derby GC; Oyer PE; Miller DC
    Circulation; 1990 Nov; 82(5 Suppl):IV117-24. PubMed ID: 2225396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A comparison of valve resistance, the continuity equation, and the Gorlin formula against directly observed orifice area in bioprosthetic valves in the mitral position: an in vitro study.
    Chambers JB; Wang Z; Cooke RA; Black MM
    J Heart Valve Dis; 1996 Mar; 5(2):136-43. PubMed ID: 8665004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Inadequacy of the Gorlin formula for predicting prosthetic valve area.
    Cannon SR; Richards KL; Crawford MH; Folland ED; Pierpont G; Sethi GK; Hammermeister KE
    Am J Cardiol; 1988 Jul; 62(1):113-6. PubMed ID: 3381730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of Hancock I and Hancock II bioprostheses.
    Oury JH; Angell WW; Koziol JA
    J Card Surg; 1988 Sep; 3(3 Suppl):375-81. PubMed ID: 2980040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Value and limitations of Doppler pressure half-time in quantifying mitral stenosis: a comparison with micromanometer catheter recordings.
    Smith MD; Wisenbaugh T; Grayburn PA; Gurley JC; Spain MG; DeMaria AN
    Am Heart J; 1991 Feb; 121(2 Pt 1):480-8. PubMed ID: 1990752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Six month postoperative hemodynamics of the Hancock heterograft and the Björk-Shiley prosthesis: results of a Veterans Administration cooperative prospective randomized trial.
    Khuri SF; Folland ED; Sethi GK; Souchek J; Oprian C; Wong M; Burchfiel C; Henderson WG; Hammermeister KE
    J Am Coll Cardiol; 1988 Jul; 12(1):8-18. PubMed ID: 3288680
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. First in human implantation of the mechanical expanding Lotus® valve in degenerated surgical valves in mitral position.
    Schaefer U; Conradi L; Lubos E; Deuschl F; Schofer N; Seiffert M; Treede H; Schirmer J; Reichenspurner H; Blankenberg S
    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2015 Dec; 86(7):1280-6. PubMed ID: 26389782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Hemodynamic factors that affect calculated orifice areas in the mitral hancock xenograft valve.
    Ubago JL; Figueroa A; Colman T; Ochoteco A; Duran CG
    Circulation; 1980 Feb; 61(2):388-94. PubMed ID: 7351065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparative Doppler evaluation of the monostrut and older convexo-concave Björk-Shiley mitral prosthetic valve.
    Radhakrishnan S; Dev V; Saxena A; Bahl VK; Venugopal P; Shrivastava S
    Int J Cardiol; 1989 Sep; 24(3):355-8. PubMed ID: 2788623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Clinical and hemodynamic sequelae of mitral prostheses evaluated by Doppler echocardiography].
    Iwahashi K; Ota T; Sato H; Kanda H; Sugimoto T; Okada M; Nakamura K
    J Cardiol; 1992; 22(4):651-9. PubMed ID: 1343631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.