209 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3415376)
1. Aortic valve selection in the elderly patient.
Borkon AM; Soule LM; Baughman KL; Baumgartner WA; Gardner TJ; Watkins L; Gott VL; Hall KA; Reitz BA
Ann Thorac Surg; 1988 Sep; 46(3):270-7. PubMed ID: 3415376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Preferability of bioprostheses for isolated aortic valve replacement--a comparative study between mechanical and bioprosthetic valves.
Kawachi Y; Tokunaga K
Jpn Circ J; 1990 Feb; 54(2):137-45. PubMed ID: 2355449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in the elderly: benefits and risks.
Holper K; Wottke M; Lewe T; Baumer L; Meisner H; Paek SU; Sebening F
Ann Thorac Surg; 1995 Aug; 60(2 Suppl):S443-6. PubMed ID: 7646205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparative analysis of mechanical and bioprosthetic valves after aortic valve replacement.
Borkon AM; Soule LM; Baughman KL; Aoun H; Baumgartner WA; Gardner TJ; Watkins L; Gott VL; Reitz BA
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1987 Jul; 94(1):20-33. PubMed ID: 3600005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized evaluation of mechanical versus biological valves in patients ages 55 to 70 years.
Stassano P; Di Tommaso L; Monaco M; Iorio F; Pepino P; Spampinato N; Vosa C
J Am Coll Cardiol; 2009 Nov; 54(20):1862-8. PubMed ID: 19892237
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Long-term survival and valve-related complications in young women with cardiac valve replacements.
North RA; Sadler L; Stewart AW; McCowan LM; Kerr AR; White HD
Circulation; 1999 May; 99(20):2669-76. PubMed ID: 10338461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparative clinical experience with porcine bioprosthetic and St. Jude valve replacement.
Czer LS; Matloff JM; Chaux A; DeRobertis MA; Gray RJ
Chest; 1987 Apr; 91(4):503-14. PubMed ID: 3829742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Comparative study between St. Jude Medical and bioprosthetic valves in the right side of the heart.
Kawachi Y; Masuda M; Tominaga R; Tokunaga K
Jpn Circ J; 1991 Jun; 55(6):553-62. PubMed ID: 1875522
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Clinical comparative study between mitral mechanical and bioprosthetic valves--what is the benefit of bioprosthetic valves in the mitral position?
Kawachi Y; Tokunaga K
Jpn Circ J; 1990 Dec; 54(12):1525-34. PubMed ID: 2077150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Pericarbon pericardial valve prosthesis: midterm results of the aortic valve replacement.
Borowiec JW; Dubiel TW; Hansson HE; Landelius J; Nyström SO
Angiology; 1998 Jan; 49(1):1-11. PubMed ID: 9456159
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A comparison of outcomes in men 11 years after heart-valve replacement with a mechanical valve or bioprosthesis. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study on Valvular Heart Disease.
Hammermeister KE; Sethi GK; Henderson WG; Oprian C; Kim T; Rahimtoola S
N Engl J Med; 1993 May; 328(18):1289-96. PubMed ID: 8469251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Durability of porcine valves at fifteen years in a representative North American patient population.
Burdon TA; Miller DC; Oyer PE; Mitchell RS; Stinson EB; Starnes VA; Shumway NE
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1992 Feb; 103(2):238-51; discussion 251-2. PubMed ID: 1735989
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. National trends in utilization and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements.
Isaacs AJ; Shuhaiber J; Salemi A; Isom OW; Sedrakyan A
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2015 May; 149(5):1262-9.e3. PubMed ID: 25791947
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
