Percutaneous and surgical treatment of aortic stenosis

References

• Cowell SJ, Newby DE, Prescott RJ et al. A randomized trial of intensive lipid-lowering therapy in calcific aortic stenosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 352(23), 2389–2397 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cribier A, Savin T, Saoudi N et al. Percutaneous transluminal valvuloplasty of acquired aortic stenosis in elderly patients: an alternative to valve replacement? Lancet 1(8472), 63–67 (1986).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vahanian A, Palacios IF. Percutaneous approaches to valvular disease. Circulation 109(13), 1572–1579 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonhoeffer P, Boudjemline Y, Quershi SA et al. Percutaneous insertion of the pulmonary valve. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 39(10), 1664–1669 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H, Bash A et al. Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: first human case description. Circulation 106(24), 3006–3008 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cribier, A, Eltchaninoff H, Tron C et al. Early experience with percutaneous transcatheter implantation of heart valve prosthesis for the treatment of end-stage inoperable patients with calcific aortic stenosis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 43(4), 698–703 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eltchaninoff H, Tron C, Cribier A. Percutaneous implantation of aortic valve prosthesis in patients with calcific aortic stenosis: technical aspects. J. Interv. Cardiol. 16(6), 515–521 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morsi YS, Birchall IE, Rosenfeldt FL. Artificial aortic valves: an overview. Int. J. Artif. Organs 27(6), 445–451 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harken DE, Soroff HS, Taylor WJ, Lefemine AA, Gupta SK, Lonzer S. Partial and complete protheses in aortic insuffiency. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 40, 744–762 (1960).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Starr A, Edwards ML. Mitral replacement: clinical experience with a ball-valve prosthesis. Ann. Surg. 154, 726–740 (1961).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleine P, Klesius AA, Scherer M, Abdel-Rhaman U, Moritz A. Initial in vivo results of the new Medtronic Advantage(TM) bileaflet valve in aortic position and comparison to the SJM. Cardiovascular Surgery 10(5), 494–499 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bottio T, Caprili L, Casarotto D, Gerosa G. Small aortic annulus: the hydrodynamic performances of 5 commercially available bileaflet mechanical valves. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 128(3), 457–462 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu Y, Gregorio R, Renzulli A. Mechanical heart valves: are two leaflets better than one? J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 127(4), 171–179 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Autschbach R, Walther T, Falk V et al. Prospectively randomized comparison of different mechanical aortic valves. Circulation 102(19 Suppl. 3), III1–III4 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Lim KH, Caputo M, Ascione R et al. Prospective randomized comparison of CarboMedics and St Jude Medical bileaflet mechanical heart valve prostheses: an interim report. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 123(1), 21–32 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen G, Christakis GT, Joyner CD et al. Are stentless valves hemodynamically superior to stented valves? A prospective randomized trial. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 73(3), 767–775; discussion 775–8 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahimtoola SH. Choice of prosthetic heart valve for adult patients. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 41(6), 893–904 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dagenais F, Cartier P, Voisine P et al. Which biologic valve should we select for the 45- to 65-year-old age group requiring aortic valve replacement? J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 129(5), 1041–1049 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilian E, Oberhoffer M, Gulbins H, Uhlig A, Kreuzer E, Reichart B. Ten years’ experience in aortic valve replacement with homografts in 389 cases. J. Heart Valve Disease 13(4), 554–559 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pompilio G, Polvani G, Piccolo G et al., Six-year monitoring of the donor-specific immune response to cryopreserved aortic allograft valves: implications with valve dysfunction. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 78(2), 557–63 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross DN. Replacement of aortic and mitral valves with a pulmonary autograft. Lancet 2(7523), 956–958 (1967).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabkin-Aikawa E, Aikawa M, Farber M et al. Clinical pulmonary autograft valves: pathologic evidence of adaptive remodeling in the aortic site. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 128(4), 552–561 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alphonso N, Baghai M, Dhital K et al. Midterm results of the Ross procedure. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 25(6), 925–930 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammermeister K, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Grover FL, Oprian C, Rahimtoola SH. 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. 36(4), 1152–1158 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxenham H, Bloomfield P, Wheatley DJ et al. Twenty year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. Heart (British Cardiac Society) 89(7), 715–721 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vallejo JL. Randomized, prospective, clinical study comparing the Bjork-Shiley, Lillehei-Kaster and Angell-Shiley prostheses in the mitral position. Rev. Esp. Cardiol. 34(6), 457–463 (1981).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kassai B, Gueyffier F, Cucherat M et al., Comparison of bioprosthesis and mechanical valves, a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Cardiovasc. Surg. 8(6), 477–483 (2000) [Erratum appears in Cardiovasc. Surg. 9(3), 304–306 (2001)].
   Google Scholar
• Puvimanasinghe JP, Takkenberg JJ, Edwards MB et al. Comparison of outcomes after aortic valve replacement with a mechanical valve or a bioprosthesis using microsimulation. Heart (British Cardiac Society) 90(10), 1172–1178 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrus BW, O’Rourke DJ, Dacey LJ, Palac RT. Stability of ascending aortic dilatation following aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 108 (Suppl. 1), II295–II299 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Munyikwa M, Abbas G, Savage EB. Ascending aortic endarterectomy under circulatory arrest to facilitate safe aortic cross-clamping in aortic valve replacement. J. Cardiasc. Surg. 19(3), 258–259 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Machler HE, Bergmann P, Anelli-Monti M et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve operations: a prospective study in 120 patients. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 67(4), 1001–1005 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aris A, Camara ML, Montiel J, Delgado LJ, Galan J, Litvan H. Ministernotomy versus median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a prospective, randomized study. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 67(6), 1583–1587; discussion 1587–8 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masiello P, Coscioni E, Panza A, Triumbari F, Preziosi G, DiBenedetto G. Surgical results of aortic valve replacement via partial upper sternotomy: comparison with median sternotomy. Cardiovascular Surgery 10(4), 333–338 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Corbi P, Rahmati M, Donal E et al. Prospective comparison of minimally invasive and standard techniques for aortic valve replacement: initial experience in the first hundred patients. J. Cardiac Surg. 18(2), 133–139 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimbalist D, Zable Joshua DM. Cardiac Surgery: Technology’s Role is Rising. Natexis Bleichroeder, Inc. Investment Report 2–14 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Dorland Biomedical, Medical and Healthcare Marketplace Guide. 18th Ed. Dorland’s Biomedical Publications, PA, USA, I1630–I1633 (2003).
   Google Scholar