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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

152 related items for PubMed ID: 36282527

  • 21. Comparison of porcine versus bovine pericardial bioprosthesis in the mitral position.
    Tsubota H, Sakaguchi G, Arakaki R, Marui A.
    J Card Surg; 2021 Aug; 36(8):2776-2783. PubMed ID: 33982352
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22. Comparison of modes of failure and clinical outcomes between explanted porcine and bovine pericardial bioprosthetic valves.
    Keshishi M, Fatima R, Seidman MA, Butany J, Ouzounian M, Chung J.
    Cardiovasc Pathol; 2023 Aug; 65():107516. PubMed ID: 36621556
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23. Midterm Durability and Hemodynamic Performance of a Third-Generation Bovine Pericardial Prosthetic Aortic Valve: The Leipzig Experience.
    Lehmann S, Meyer A, Schroeter T, Uhlemann M, Fischer J, Leontyev S, Garbade J, Holzhey D, Misfeld M, Mohr FW.
    Ann Thorac Surg; 2017 Jun; 103(6):1933-1939. PubMed ID: 27955900
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24. Long-Term Outcomes of Mosaic Versus Perimount Mitral Replacements: 17-Year Follow-Up of 940 Implants.
    Beute TJ, Goehler M, Parker J, Boeve T, Heiser J, Murphy E, Timek T, Willekes CL.
    Ann Thorac Surg; 2020 Aug; 110(2):508-515. PubMed ID: 31866480
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 25. Stentless aortic valve replacement: an update.
    Kobayashi J.
    Vasc Health Risk Manag; 2011 Aug; 7():345-51. PubMed ID: 21731886
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28. Late Outcomes of Porcine and Pericardial Bioprostheses After Mitral Valve Replacement in 1162 Patients.
    Zwischenberger BA, Gaca JG, Haney JC, Carr K, Glower DD.
    Ann Thorac Surg; 2024 Oct; 118(4):882-888. PubMed ID: 38631662
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30. Porcine vs Bovine Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves: Long-Term Clinical Results.
    Persson M, Glaser N, Franco-Cereceda A, Nilsson J, Holzmann MJ, Sartipy U.
    Ann Thorac Surg; 2021 Feb; 111(2):529-535. PubMed ID: 32693042
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31. Durability of pericardial versus porcine aortic valves.
    Gao G, Wu Y, Grunkemeier GL, Furnary AP, Starr A.
    J Am Coll Cardiol; 2004 Jul 21; 44(2):384-8. PubMed ID: 15261935
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33. Magna ease bioprosthetic aortic valve: mid-term haemodynamic outcomes in 1126 patients.
    Thorp SD, Khazaal J, Yu G, Parker JL, Timek TA.
    Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg; 2021 May 27; 32(6):839-845. PubMed ID: 33570145
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36. 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 27; 9(3):429-37; discussion 437-8. PubMed ID: 10888102
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 37.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 8.