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

479 related items for PubMed ID: 8901731

  • 1. 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 01; 94(9 Suppl):II121-5. PubMed ID: 8901731
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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 01; 30(3):485-91. PubMed ID: 16857373
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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 01; 7(5):574-9. PubMed ID: 9793859
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. 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 01; 62(5):1301-11; discussion 1311-2. PubMed ID: 8893561
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. 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 01; 25(3):364-70. PubMed ID: 15019662
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Seventeen-year experience with the St. Jude medical biocor porcine bioprosthesis.
    Mykén PS.
    J Heart Valve Dis; 2005 Jul 01; 14(4):486-92. PubMed ID: 16116875
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. 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 Jul 01; 23(4):299-306. PubMed ID: 18462345
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. 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 10; 54(20):1862-8. PubMed ID: 19892237
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Eighteen-year follow up after Hancock II bioprosthesis insertion.
    Legarra JJ, Llorens R, Catalan M, Segura I, Trenor AM, de Buruaga JS, Rabago G, Sarralde A.
    J Heart Valve Dis; 1999 Jan 10; 8(1):16-24. PubMed ID: 10096477
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Choice of replacement valve in the elderly.
    Kobayashi Y, Eishi K, Nagata S, Nakano K, Sasako Y, Kobayashi J, Kosakai Y, Miyatake K.
    J Heart Valve Dis; 1997 Jul 10; 6(4):404-9. PubMed ID: 9263873
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Simultaneous aortic and mitral valve replacement in children: time-related outcomes and risk factors.
    Alsoufi B, Al-Halees Z, Fadel B, Al-Wesabi A, Al-Ahmadi M, Joufan M, Siblini G, Canver CC.
    J Heart Valve Dis; 2010 May 10; 19(3):341-8. PubMed ID: 20583397
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. 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 06; 328(18):1289-96. PubMed ID: 8469251
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70 years: improved outcome with mechanical versus biologic prostheses.
    Brown ML, Schaff HV, Lahr BD, Mullany CJ, Sundt TM, Dearani JA, McGregor CG, Orszulak TA.
    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2008 Apr 06; 135(4):878-84; discussion 884. PubMed ID: 18374773
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Risk-corrected impact of mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves on long-term mortality after aortic valve replacement.
    Lund O, Bland M.
    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2006 Jul 06; 132(1):20-6. PubMed ID: 16798297
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. 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 06; 94(1):20-33. PubMed ID: 3600005
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Mechanical versus biological valve prosthesis in the mitral position: a 10-year follow up of St. Jude Medical and Biocor valves.
    Demirag M, Kirali K, Omeroglu SN, Mansuroglu D, Akinci E, Ipek G, Berki T, Gürbüz A, Isik O, Yakut C.
    J Heart Valve Dis; 2001 Jan 06; 10(1):78-83. PubMed ID: 11206772
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Surgical management of aortic valve disease in the elderly: A retrospective comparative study of valve choice using propensity score analysis.
    Accola KD, Scott ML, Palmer GJ, Thompson PA, Sand ME, Suarez-Cavalier JE, Bott JN, Ebra G.
    J Heart Valve Dis; 2008 Jul 06; 17(4):355-64; discussion 365. PubMed ID: 18751463
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Tricuspid valve replacement: bioprostheses are preferable.
    Dalrymple-Hay MJ, Leung Y, Ohri SK, Haw MP, Ross JK, Livesey SA, Monro JL.
    J Heart Valve Dis; 1999 Nov 06; 8(6):644-8. PubMed ID: 10616242
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 24.