119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7742990)
1. Comparative assessment of bioprosthesis durability in the aortic position.
Grunkemeier GL; Bodnar E
J Heart Valve Dis; 1995 Jan; 4(1):49-55. PubMed ID: 7742990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Porcine valves: Hancock and Carpentier-Edwards aortic prostheses.
Fann JI; Miller DC
Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1996 Jul; 8(3):259-68. PubMed ID: 8843517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. St Jude Epic heart valve bioprostheses versus native human and porcine aortic valves - comparison of mechanical properties.
Kalejs M; Stradins P; Lacis R; Ozolanta I; Pavars J; Kasyanov V
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg; 2009 May; 8(5):553-6. PubMed ID: 19190025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Mitroflow pericardial valve prosthesis in the aortic position: an analysis of long-term outcome and prognostic factors.
Minami K; Boethig D; Mirow N; Kleikamp G; Koertke H; Godehardt E; Koerfer R
J Heart Valve Dis; 2000 Jan; 9(1):112-22. PubMed ID: 10678383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Are allografts the biologic valve of choice for aortic valve replacement in nonelderly patients? Comparison of explantation for structural valve deterioration of allograft and pericardial prostheses.
Smedira NG; Blackstone EH; Roselli EE; Laffey CC; Cosgrove DM
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2006 Mar; 131(3):558-564.e4. PubMed ID: 16515905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effects of fixation back pressure and antimineralization treatment on the morphology of porcine aortic bioprosthetic valves.
Flomenbaum MA; Schoen FJ
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1993 Jan; 105(1):154-64. PubMed ID: 8419696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Lack of durability of the Mitroflow valve does not affect survival.
Houel R; Le Besnerais P; Soustelle C; Kirsch M; Hillion ML; Loisance D
J Heart Valve Dis; 1999 Jul; 8(4):368-74; discussion 374-5. PubMed ID: 10461235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Porcine or human stentless valves for aortic valve replacement? Results of a 10-year comparative study.
Ali A; Lim E; Halstead J; Ashrafian H; Ali Z; Khalpey Z; Theodorou P; Chamageorgakis T; Kumar P; Jackson C; Pepper J
J Heart Valve Dis; 2003 Jul; 12(4):430-5; discussion 435. PubMed ID: 12918841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The failure modes of biological prosthetic heart valves.
Butany J; Leask R
J Long Term Eff Med Implants; 2001; 11(3-4):115-35. PubMed ID: 11921659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Valve failure following homograft aortic valve replacement: does implantation technique have an effect?
Ali A; Abu-Omar Y; Patel A; Ali Z; Sheikh AY; Akhtar A; Pavlovic A; Theodorou P; Athanasiou T; Pepper J
Eur Heart J; 2008 Jun; 29(11):1454-62. PubMed ID: 18456709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of Carpentier-Edwards pericardial and supraannular bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement.
Puvimanasinghe JP; Takkenberg JJ; Eijkemans MJ; van Herwerden LA; Jamieson WR; Grunkemeier GL; Habbema JD; Bogers AJ
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2006 Mar; 29(3):374-9. PubMed ID: 16386920
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Specific features of the structure of the porcine aortic valve as a potential xenograft for the substitution of the human aorta valve].
Gavrilenkov VI
Vestn Khir Im I I Grek; 2004; 163(3):28-34. PubMed ID: 15317157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Introduction of a flexible polymeric heart valve prosthesis with special design for aortic position.
Daebritz SH; Fausten B; Hermanns B; Schroeder J; Groetzner J; Autschbach R; Messmer BJ; Sachweh JS
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2004 Jun; 25(6):946-52. PubMed ID: 15144993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Analysis of the design and dynamics of aortic bioprostheses in vivo.
Thubrikar M; Skinner JR; Aouad J; Finkelmeier BA; Nolan SP
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1982 Aug; 84(2):282-90. PubMed ID: 7098513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Do heart valve bioprostheses degenerate for metabolic or mechanical reasons?
Gabbay S; Kadam P; Factor S; Cheung TK
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1988 Feb; 95(2):208-15. PubMed ID: 2963176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Aortic and mitral valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: mid-term clinical results.
Meyns B; Szecsi J; Flameng W; Daenen W
J Heart Valve Dis; 1994 Jan; 3(1):66-70. PubMed ID: 8162219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
