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 *

93 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7446289)

  • 1. Valvular xenograft and valvular xenobioprosthesis: Past, present, and future.
    Carpentier A
    Adv Cardiol; 1980; 27():281-93. PubMed ID: 7446289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. From valvular xenograft to valvular bioprosthesis (1965-1977).
    Carpentier A
    Med Instrum; 1977; 11(2):98-101. PubMed ID: 404516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Durability after aortic valve replacement with the Mitroflow versus the Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis: a single-centre experience in 2393 patients.
    Nielsen PH; Hjortdal V; Modrau IS; Jensen H; Kimose HH; Terp K; Poulsen SH; Smerup M; Nielsen SL
    Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2016 Jun; 49(6):1705-10. PubMed ID: 26984983
    [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. Valvular xenograft and valvular xenobioprosthesis: past, present, future.
    Carpentier A
    Nihon Kyobu Geka Gakkai Zasshi; 1979 Apr; 27(4):397-404. PubMed ID: 469294
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Twelve-year experience with glutaraldehyde-preserved porcine xenografts.
    Angell WW; Angell JD; Kosek JC
    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1982 Apr; 83(4):493-502. PubMed ID: 7062763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Aortic valve replacement with stentless porcine aortic valve].
    Nakano K; Eishi K; Kobayashi J; Sasako Y; Isobe F; Kosakai Y
    J Cardiol; 1997; 29 Suppl 2():73-8. PubMed ID: 9211106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Late incidence and determinants of reoperation in patients with prosthetic heart valves.
    Ruel M; Kulik A; Rubens FD; Bédard P; Masters RG; Pipe AL; Mesana TG
    Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2004 Mar; 25(3):364-70. PubMed ID: 15019662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Durability of pericardial versus porcine aortic valves.
    Gao G; Wu Y; Grunkemeier GL; Furnary AP; Starr A
    J Am Coll Cardiol; 2004 Jul; 44(2):384-8. PubMed ID: 15261935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Ten year durability and performance of porcine bioprostheses.
    Miller DC; Oyer PE; Stinson EB; Shumway NE
    Z Kardiol; 1985; 74 Suppl 6():15-8. PubMed ID: 4096073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Twenty-year durability of the aortic Hancock II bioprosthesis in young patients: is it durable enough?
    Une D; Ruel M; David TE
    Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2014 Nov; 46(5):825-30. PubMed ID: 24510909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine bioprosthesis. A first-generation tissue valve with excellent long-term clinical performance.
    Jamieson WR; Allen P; Miyagishima RT; Gerein AN; Munro AI; Burr LH; Tyers GF
    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1990 Mar; 99(3):543-61. PubMed ID: 2308373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Calcific stenosis of a glutaraldehyde-treated porcine bioprosthesis in the aortic position.
    Gordon MH; Walters MB; Allen P; Burton JD
    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1980 Nov; 80(5):788-91. PubMed ID: 7431977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Long-term follow-up of aortic or mitral valve replacement. Comparison of results following implantation of a mechanical or biological artificial valve].
    Mudra H; Rudolph W
    Herz; 1986 Apr; 11(2):97-115. PubMed ID: 3699678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of outcomes after aortic valve replacement with a mechanical valve or a bioprosthesis using microsimulation.
    Puvimanasinghe JP; Takkenberg JJ; Edwards MB; Eijkemans MJ; Steyerberg EW; Van Herwerden LA; Taylor KM; Grunkemeier GL; Habbema JD; Bogers AJ
    Heart; 2004 Oct; 90(10):1172-8. PubMed ID: 15367517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.