The right choice of prosthesis for patients undergoing aortic valve surgery: Searching the truth

References

• Phillips S. J. Searching for the truth: a mechanical or a tissue valve?. J Heart Valve Dis 2004; 13: 95–8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Autschbach R., Walther T., Falk V., Kostelka M., Rosler A., Langebartels G., et al. Prospectively randomized comparison of different mechanical aortic valves. Circulation 2000; 102: 1–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahimtoola S. H. The problem of valve prosthesis‐patient mismatch. Circulation 1978; 58: 20–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emery R. Perspective in Valve Surgery, Anticogulation‐use, Management. Colorado Springs, Colorado 2001, Part 2 of a 3‐Part Series
   Google Scholar
• Rahimtoola S. H. Choice of prosthetic heart valve for adult patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 41: 893–904
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonow R. O., Carabello B. A., Chatterjee K., de Leon A. C., Jr., Faxon D. P., Freed M. D., et al. ACC/AHA 2006 Practice Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: Executive Summary A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease) Developed in Collaboration With the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 48: 598–675
   Google Scholar
• Wheatley D. J. The ‘threshold age’ in choosing biological versus mechanical prostheses in western countries. J Heart Valve Dis 2004; 13: 91–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxenham H., Bloomfield P., Wheatley D. J., Lee R. J., Cunningham J., Prescott R. J., et al. Twenty year comparison of a Bjork‐Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. Heart 2003; 89: 715–21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammermeister K., Sethi G. K., Henderson W. G., Grover F. L., Oprian C., Rahimtoola S. H. Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36: 1152–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterseim D. S., Cen Y. Y., Cheruvu S., Landolfo K., Bashore T. M., Lowe J. E., et al. Long‐term outcome after biologic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in 841 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999; 117: 890–7
   Google Scholar
• Khan S. S., Trento A., DeRobertis M., Kass R. M., Sandhu M., Czer L. S., et al. Twenty‐year comparison of tissue and mechanical valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001; 122: 257–69
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birkmeyer N. J., Birkmeyer J. D., Tosteson A. N., Grunkemeier G. L., Marrin C. A., O'Connor G. T. Prosthetic valve type for patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: a decision analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 2000; 70: 1946–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puvimanasinghe J. P., Takkenberg J. J., Eijkemans M. J., Steyerberg E. W., van Herwerden L. A., Grunkemeier G. L., et al. Choice of a mechanical valve or a bioprosthesis for AVR: does CABG matter?. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2003; 23: 688–95
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luciani G. B., Casali G., Santini F., Mazzucco A. Aortic root replacement in adolescents and young adults: composite graft versus homograft or autograft. Ann Thorac Surg 1998; 66: 189–93
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waszyrowski T., Kasprzak J. D., Krzeminska‐Pakula M., Dziatkowiak A., Zaslonka J. Early and long‐term outcome of aortic valve replacement with homograft versus mechanical prosthesis—8‐year follow‐up study. Clin Cardiol 1997; 20: 843–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Concha M., Aranda P. J., Casares J., Merino C., Alados P., Munoz I., et al. Prospective evaluation of aortic valve replacement in young adults and middle‐aged patients: mechanical prosthesis versus pulmonary autograft. J Heart Valve Dis 2005; 14: 40–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aklog L., Carr‐White G. S., Birks E. J., Yacoub M. H. Pulmonary autograft versus aortic homograft for aortic valve replacement: interim results from a prospective randomized trial. J Heart Valve Dis 2000; 9: 176–88
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krayenbuehl H. P., Hess O. M., Monrad E. S., Schneider J., Mall G., Turina M. Left ventricular myocardial structure in aortic valve disease before, intermediate, and late after aortic valve replacement. Circulation 1989; 79: 744–55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villari B., Vassalli G., Monrad E. S., Chiariello M., Turina M., Hess O. M. Normalization of diastolic dysfunction in aortic stenosis late after valve replacement. Circulation 1995; 91: 2353–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin X. Y., Gibson D. G., Yacoub M. H., Pepper J. R. Perioperative assessment of aortic homograft, Toronto stentless valve, and stented valve in the aortic position. Ann Thorac Surg 1995; 60: 395–401
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin X. Y., Zhang Z. M., Gibson D. G., Yacoub M. H., Pepper J. R. Effects of valve substitute on changes in left ventricular function and hypertrophy after aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 1996; 62: 683–90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen G., Christakis G. T., Joyner C. D., Morgan C. D., Tamariz M., Hanayama N., et al. Are stentless valves hemodynamically superior to stented valves? A prospective randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg 2002; 73: 767–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaudino M., Alessandrini F., Glieca F., Luciani N., Cellini C., Pragliola C., et al. Survival after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis: does left ventricular mass regression have a clinical correlate?. Eur Heart J 2005; 26: 51–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin X. Y. Elucidation of cardiac physiology in aortic valve replacement: what should we know?. J Heart Valve Dis 2004; 13: S70–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vink R., Kraaijenhagen R. A., Hutten B. A., van den Brink R. B., de Mol B. A., Buller H. R., et al. The optimal intensity of vitamin K antagonists in patients with mechanical heart valves: a meta‐analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 42: 2042–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association. Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Patients with Valvular Heart Disease). J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 32: 1486–588
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moinuddeen K., Quin J., Shaw R., Dewar M., Tellides G., Kopf G., et al. Anticoagulation is unnecessary after biological aortic valve replacement. Circulation 1998; II95–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpentier A., Dubost C., Lane E., Nashef A., Carpentier S., Relland J., et al. Continuing improvements in valvular bioprostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1982; 83: 27–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gherli T., Colli A., Nicolini F. Incidence of anticoagulation in patients with bioprostheses. J Heart Valve Dis 2004; 13: 88–9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palareti G., Manotti C., DAngelo A., Pengo V., Erba N., Moia M., et al. Thrombotic events during oral anticoagulant treatment: results of the inception‐cohort, prospective, collaborative ISCOAT study: ISCOAT study group (Italian Study on Complications of Oral Anticoagulant Therapy). Thromb Haemost 1997; 78: 1438–43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acar J., Iung B., Boissel J. P., Samama M. M., Michel P. L., Teppe J. P., et al. AREVA: multicenter randomized comparison of low‐dose versus standard‐dose anticoagulation in patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves. Circulation 1996; 94: 2107–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hering D., Piper C., Bergemann R., Hillenbach C., Dahm M., Huth C., et al. Thromboembolic and bleeding complications following St. Jude Medical valve replacement: results of the German Experience with Low‐Intensity Anticoagulation Study. Chest 2005; 127: 53–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hering D., Piper C., Bergemann R., Hillenbach C., Horstkotte D. Influence of two different reporting systems on counts of thromboembolic and bleeding complications after St. Jude medical valve replacement: results from the GELIA study. J Heart Valve Dis 2005; 14: 467–71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gometza B., Kumar N., Prabhakar G., Gallo R., Kandeel M., Duran C. M. The challenge of valve surgery in a developing population. J Heart Valve Dis 1993; 2: 194–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Antunes M. J. Should valve evaluation be undertaken in different populations from different countries?. J Heart Valve Dis 2004; 13: 7–10
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choudhary S. K., Mathur A., Sharma R., Saxena A., Chopra P., Roy R., et al. Pulmonary autograft: should it be used in young patients with rheumatic disease?. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999; 118: 483–90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elahi M., Usmaan K. The bioprosthesis type and size influence the postoperative incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation in patients undergoing aortic valve surgery. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2006; 15: 113–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elahi M. M., Osman K. A., Bhandari M., Dhannapuneni R. R. Does the Type of Prosthesis Influence the Incidence of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement?. Heart Surg Forum 2005; 8: 396–400
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar