265 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30608571)
1. Biological or mechanical prostheses for isolated aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50-65 years: the ANDALVALVE study.
Rodríguez-Caulo EA; Macías D; Adsuar A; Ferreiro A; Arias-Dachary J; Parody G; Fernández F; Daroca T; Rodríguez-Mora F; Garrido JM; Muñoz-Carvajal I; Barquero JM; Valderrama JF; Melero JM
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2019 Jun; 55(6):1160-1167. PubMed ID: 30608571
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Ten-year comparison of pericardial tissue valves versus mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 60 years of age.
Weber A; Noureddine H; Englberger L; Dick F; Gahl B; Aymard T; Czerny M; Tevaearai H; Stalder M; Carrel TP
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2012 Nov; 144(5):1075-83. PubMed ID: 22341653
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Mechanical versus biological valve prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with infective endocarditis.
Kytö V; Ahtela E; Sipilä J; Rautava P; Gunn J
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg; 2019 Sep; 29(3):386-392. PubMed ID: 31121026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Long-term Outcomes of Mechanical Vs Biologic Aortic Valve Prosthesis in Patients Older Than 70 Years.
Kytö V; Myllykangas ME; Sipilä J; Niiranen TJ; Rautava P; Gunn J
Ann Thorac Surg; 2019 Nov; 108(5):1354-1360. PubMed ID: 31082357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Survival and long-term outcomes following bioprosthetic vs mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 69 years.
Chiang YP; Chikwe J; Moskowitz AJ; Itagaki S; Adams DH; Egorova NN
JAMA; 2014 Oct; 312(13):1323-9. PubMed ID: 25268439
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Mechanical Versus Biologic Prostheses for Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged 50 to 70.
Kytö V; Sipilä J; Ahtela E; Rautava P; Gunn J
Ann Thorac Surg; 2020 Jul; 110(1):102-110. PubMed ID: 31786289
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Survival and Long-Term Outcomes of Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged 55 to 65 Years.
Alex S; Hiebert B; Arora R; Menkis A; Shah P
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2018 Jun; 66(4):313-321. PubMed ID: 28511244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: Revisiting prosthesis choice in patients younger than 50 years old.
Schnittman SR; Adams DH; Itagaki S; Toyoda N; Egorova NN; Chikwe J
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2018 Feb; 155(2):539-547.e9. PubMed ID: 29110948
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Bioprosthetic vs mechanical mitral valve replacement for infective endocarditis in patients aged 50 to 69 years.
Hu X; Jiang W; Xie M; Guo R; Yim WY; Dong N; Wang Y
Clin Cardiol; 2020 Oct; 43(10):1093-1099. PubMed ID: 32497339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Mid term outcome and quality of life after aortic valve replacement in elderly people: mechanical versus stentless biological valves.
Florath I; Albert A; Rosendahl U; Alexander T; Ennker IC; Ennker J
Heart; 2005 Aug; 91(8):1023-9. PubMed ID: 16020589
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Complicated infective aortic endocarditis: comparison of different surgical strategies.
Silaschi M; Nicou N; Deshpande R; Chaubey S; Baghai M; Dworakowski R; Wendler O
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg; 2017 Sep; 25(3):343-349. PubMed ID: 28498907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Long-term evaluation of biological versus mechanical prosthesis use at reoperative aortic valve replacement.
Chan V; Lam BK; Rubens FD; Hendry P; Masters R; Mesana TG; Ruel M
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2012 Jul; 144(1):146-51. PubMed ID: 21962842
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Survival and outcomes following bioprosthetic vs mechanical mitral valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 69 years.
Chikwe J; Chiang YP; Egorova NN; Itagaki S; Adams DH
JAMA; 2015 Apr; 313(14):1435-42. PubMed ID: 25871669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Long-term safety and effectiveness of mechanical versus biologic aortic valve prostheses in older patients: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery National Database.
Brennan JM; Edwards FH; Zhao Y; O'Brien S; Booth ME; Dokholyan RS; Douglas PS; Peterson ED;
Circulation; 2013 Apr; 127(16):1647-55. PubMed ID: 23538379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Long-term outcomes of mechanical versus biological aortic valve prosthesis: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Diaz R; Hernandez-Vaquero D; Alvarez-Cabo R; Avanzas P; Silva J; Moris C; Pascual I
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2019 Sep; 158(3):706-714.e18. PubMed ID: 30579533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Biological versus mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement.
Rodríguez-Caulo EA; Blanco-Herrera OR; Berastegui E; Arias-Dachary J; Souaf-Khalafi S; Parody-Cuerda G; Laguna G;
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2023 Feb; 165(2):609-617.e7. PubMed ID: 33712230
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Aortic valve replacement with biological prosthesis in patients aged 50-69 years.
Malvindi PG; Luthra S; Olevano C; Salem H; Kowalewski M; Ohri S
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2021 May; 59(5):1077-1086. PubMed ID: 33966072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison between biological and mechanical aortic valve prostheses in middle-aged patients matched through propensity score analysis: long-term results.
Roumieh M; Ius F; Tudorache I; Ismail I; Fleissner F; Haverich A; Cebotari S
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2015 Jul; 48(1):129-36. PubMed ID: 25312522
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
