Choice of Prosthetic Heart Valve in Today’s Practice
2008; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 117; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1161/circulationaha.107.736819
ISSN1524-4539
AutoresReida El Oakley, Peter Kleine, David S. Bach,
Tópico(s)Infective Endocarditis Diagnosis and Management
ResumoHomeCirculationVol. 117, No. 2Choice of Prosthetic Heart Valve in Today's Practice Free AccessReview ArticlePDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessReview ArticlePDF/EPUBChoice of Prosthetic Heart Valve in Today's Practice Reida El Oakley, MD, FRCS, Peter Kleine, MD, PhD and David S. Bach, MD Reida El OakleyReida El Oakley From the Department of Surgery, Prince Sultan Cardiac Centre, Riyad, Saudi Arabia (R.E.O.); Department of Surgery, Section of Cardiac Surgery, J.W. Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany (P.K.); and Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (D.S.B.). , Peter KleinePeter Kleine From the Department of Surgery, Prince Sultan Cardiac Centre, Riyad, Saudi Arabia (R.E.O.); Department of Surgery, Section of Cardiac Surgery, J.W. Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany (P.K.); and Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (D.S.B.). and David S. BachDavid S. Bach From the Department of Surgery, Prince Sultan Cardiac Centre, Riyad, Saudi Arabia (R.E.O.); Department of Surgery, Section of Cardiac Surgery, J.W. Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany (P.K.); and Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (D.S.B.). Originally published15 Jan 2008https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.736819Circulation. 2008;117:253–256In this update, current guidelines addressing prosthesis selection published by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) are discussed, along with additional data that affect choices in valve prostheses. The case of a 50-year-old man undergoing aortic valve replacement is used to address anticipated operative mortality, risk of reoperation, and valve-related morbidity and mortality. The apparent advantages associated with the use of a bioprosthesis even in a relatively young patient help to explain current clinical trends toward the increasing use of tissue valves. We also provide a simplified algorithm that may be used to facilitate the choice of valve procedure in patients with heart valve disease.The outcomes after surgery for valvular heart disease in terms of survival, functional status, and quality of life are determined primarily by patient-related factors such as age, ventricular function, and other comorbidities.1 However, outcomes also are influenced by surgical factors; the best clinical outcomes often are associated with valve repair, although mitral repair is not always possible and aortic valve repair in adults remains the exception rather than the rule. For patients who require valve replacement, the valve prosthesis can significantly influence outcome.The ideal prosthetic valve that combines excellent hemodynamic performance and long-term durability without increased thromboembolic risk or the need for long-term anticoagulation does not exist. Hence, patients and their physicians need to choose between a mechanical and a tissue (bioprosthetic) valve. In general, the advantageous durability of mechanical valves is offset by the risk of thromboembolism and the need for long-term anticoagulation and its associated risk of bleeding. In contrast, bioprosthetic valves do not require long-term anticoagulation yet carry the risk of structural failure and reoperation.2,3Two historic randomized clinical trials compared outcomes after valve replacement with a first-generation porcine heterograft and the original Bjork-Shiley tilting-disc mechanical valve: the Edinburgh Heart Valve Trial, conducted between 1975 and 1979 with an average follow-up of 12 years,4 and the Veteran Affairs (VA) Cooperative Study on Valvular Heart Disease, conducted between 1979 and 1982 with an average follow-up of 15 years.5 The Edinburgh trial4 alone showed a small survival advantage associated with a mechanical valve in the aortic but not in the mitral position; both trials showed increased bleeding associated with mechanical valves and increased reoperation with tissue valves; and both showed that structural failure of tissue valves and overall thromboembolic complications were greater after mitral than after aortic valve replacement. Although these trials are notable for their prospective, randomized design, their major limitation is that comparisons were made between first-generation porcine heterografts and the Bjork-Shiley mechanical valve, all of which are now obsolete. Thus, the ability to extrapolate these data to decisions made in modern practice is limited.To a large degree, based on these historical studies and in the interest of freedom from reoperation, previous guidelines from the ACC/AHA heavily weighted patient age in decisions between using a tissue and mechanical prosthesis.6 Without robust, large-scale, multicenter, randomized trials comparing current-generation tissue and mechanical valves, the revised 2006 ACC/AHA guidelines7 and the 2007 ESC guidelines8 rely predominantly on level C evidence to support recommendations in prosthesis selection. In the current ACC/AHA guidelines, class I recommendations for prosthesis selection are limited to the use of a mechanical prosthesis in the setting of an existing well-functioning mechanical valve and the use of a bioprosthetic aortic or mitral valve in the setting of patient unwillingness to take warfarin or of a major contraindication to its use. In distinction to earlier guidelines, both the 2006 ACC/AHA guidelines7 and the 2007 ESC guidelines8 also make allowance (class IIa and class I, respectively) for preference of the informed patient in decisions involving prosthesis selection.A meta-analysis of 32 articles evaluated mortality from 15 mechanical and 23 biological valve series including 17 439 patients and 101 819 patient-years of follow-up. This meta-analysis found no difference in risk-corrected mortality between mechanical and bioprosthetic aortic valves regardless of patient age9 and suggested that the choice between a tissue and mechanical valve should not be based on age alone. Another large retrospective study comparing mechanical and tissue aortic valve replacement in 3062 patients with combined follow-up of 22 182 patient-years reported that age but not valve type was predictive of valve-related mortality.10 In this study, reoperation was higher after tissue aortic valve replacement only for patients ≤60 years of age, but combined valve-related morbidity was higher after mechanical valve replacement for all patients >40 years of age.There are trends in the United States and Europe toward the increasing use of tissue rather than mechanical valves and toward the use of bioprostheses in progressively younger patients.7,8,11 These trends are supported by data showing that advances in tissue fixation and anticalcification treatment have resulted in current-generation bioprostheses that have superior durability compared with the first-generation porcine valves used in the 2 randomized trials performed in the late 1970s. As an example, the second-generation Hancock II aortic valve has 81±5% freedom from structural valve deterioration after 15 years in patients with a mean age of 65 years at the time of implantation,12 which is superior to the 57±4% freedom from structural valve deterioration at 15 years in patients with a mean age of 69 years using the first-generation Hancock bioprosthesis.13 Similarly, the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial aortic valve has 94% freedom from structural valve deterioration at 10 years and 77% at 15 years in patients with a mean age of 65 years, with a <10% chance that a 65-year-old patient would require reoperation before 80 years of age.14 Ongoing studies suggest that third-generation bioprostheses may be even more durable, with 92±8% freedom from structural valve deterioration of aortic bioprosthesis 12 years after implantation in patients a mean age of 54 years at the time of surgery.15 In addition, advances in myocardial protection and cardiac surgical techniques have led to lower risks at reoperation, making the prospect of redo valve surgery less onerous.Other measurable factors such as total energy loss,16 closing volumes,17 and coronary perfusion18 also may prove to be of importance. Ultimately, however, measurable and meaningful clinical outcomes, including freedom from structural valve deterioration, freedom from valve-related morbidity and mortality, and patient lifestyle and quality of life, should be the dominant factors guiding prosthesis choice. These decisions should be made after informed discussions among the patient, the cardiologist, and the cardiac surgeon. The main determinants of valve selection are individual patient life expectancy, the patient's tolerance to the need for repeat valve replacement, and the use of oral anticoagulants with its associated changes in lifestyle (Figure). Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure. Algorithm for selecting a valve procedure. The treating physician decides in which group the patient belongs according to age and concomitant diseases. Then, the patient assesses his or her priorities and finally decides on the valve type.One means to aid in the choice between a mechanical and a tissue prosthesis is to envision the anticipated outcomes for a specific patient. For the example of a 50-year-old man with no comorbidities undergoing aortic valve replacement, anticipated operative mortality, risk of reoperation, and future valve-related morbidity and mortality can be estimated using published and available data10,19 (Table). With the logistic EuroSCORE,19 operative mortality is 1.5% regardless of the prosthesis implanted. After mechanical valve replacement, there is a 0.3%/y chance of reoperation,10 yielding a 9% risk of reoperation (30 years×0.3%/y) if the man lives to be 80 years of age. However, the chance of death at reoperation is ≈24%,19 assuming that reoperation is done on an emergency basis at 65 years of age, yielding a 2.1% chance of death at reoperation. Valve-related mortality is 0.5%/y for a patient 51 to 60 years of age and 1.1%/y in patients ≥61 years of age,10 yielding a cumulative risk of valve-related mortality of 27% over 30 years: (10×0.5%)+(20×1.1%). Valve-related morbidity is 2.2%/y for a patient 51 to 60 years of age, 2.7%/y for a patient 61 to 70 years of age, and 2.9%/y for a patient ≥71 years of age,10 yielding a cumulative risk of valve-related morbidity of 78% over 30 years, (10×2.2%)+(10×2.7%)+ (10×2.9%), and a cumulative 108.6% risk of valve-related morbidity or mortality (30.6% mortality+78% morbidity) over 30 years. Table. Projected Future Risks After Aortic Valve Replacement in a 50-Year-Old Man, Assuming 30-Year SurvivalMechanical Valve Replacement, %Bioprosthetic Valve Replacement, %See text for detailed explanation.Operative mortality1.51.5Death at reoperation (risk of reoperation×risk of death at reoperation)2.15.8 (+10.8 for second reoperation)Valve-related mortality (cumulative for 30 y)2729Valve-related morbidity (cumulative for 30 y)7812Total risk of morbidity and mortality over 30 y108.648.3 (59.1 if 2 reoperations)In contrast, initial valve replacement with a bioprosthesis would result in at least 1 anticipated reoperation before 80 years of age. If reoperation occurs at 65 years of age (15 years after initial surgery), operative risk is 5.8%,19 assuming that surgery is done electively. The anticipated risk of valve-related mortality after bioprosthetic valve replacement is 0.6%/y for a patient 51 to 60 years of age, 1.0%/y for a patient 61 to 70 years of age, and 1.3%/y for a patient ≥71 years of age,10 yielding a cumulative risk of valve-related mortality of 29% over 30 years: (10×0.6%)+(10×1.0%)+(10×1.3%), similar to that after mechanical valve replacement. However, valve-related morbidity is only 0.3%/y for a patient 51 to 60 years of age, 0.4%/y for a patient 61 to 70 years of age, and 0.5%/y for a patient age ≥71 years of age,10 yielding a cumulative risk of valve-related morbidity of 12% over 30 years—(10×0.3%)+(10×0.4%)+ (10×0.5%)—and a cumulative 48.3% risk of valve-related morbidity or mortality—36.3% mortality+12% morbidity—over 30 years. Even if the patient required a second reoperation, the cumulative risk increases by only 10.8% (calculated at 75 years of age).Mortality risk is not different after mechanical and after tissue valve replacement.4,9,10 A 50-year-old patient should anticipate at least 1 reoperation after bioprosthetic valve replacement, but overall, valve-related morbidity is far higher after mechanical valve replacement. In addition, lifestyle alterations are more likely after mechanical valve replacement owing to long-term anticoagulation with warfarin. Presented with this projected scenario, some patients will opt to try to avoid reoperation, whereas others will opt to minimize lifestyle changes and limit the risks of valve-related morbidity while accepting the likelihood of at least 1 reoperation. It is this level of information that can help lead to a truly informed patient deciding between a mechanical and a tissue prosthesis.Ideally, it would be desirable to have access to long-term outcome data for current-generation tissue and mechanical prostheses studied in large, multicenter, randomized clinical trials. However, large-scale randomized trials are unlikely to be performed, and if they were, pertinent clinical data would be available only after 15 to 20 years. By the time that long-term data became available, newer prostheses likely would have supplanted those in use today, and as is the case with the historic VA5 and Edinburgh4 heart valve trials, data would be obsolete before they were available.Because of this paradox, the practitioner is forced to make informed clinical recommendations based on incomplete data, including data extrapolated from the historic randomized controlled trials and data from more recent nonrandomized studies. The ACC/AHA guidelines7 and ESC guidelines8 provide a structure for decision making. However, without compelling data from pertinent large-scale, long-term trials, decisions will and should remain influenced by experience and expertise. This is not to say that data from randomized clinical trials would not be helpful but rather that, in the absence of such trials, the clinician must guide patients in making an informed choice that relies on available data and is appropriate for the individual patient.DisclosuresDr Kleine has served as a consultant to Medtronic. Dr Bach has received research support and is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and St Jude Medical. Dr El Oakley reports no conflicts.FootnotesCorrespondence to Reida El Oakley, MD, FRCS, Consultant Cardiac Surgeon, Prince Sultan Cardiac Centre, PO Box 99911, Riyad 11625, Saudi Arabia. E-mail [email protected]References1 Rahimtoola SH. Lessons learned about the determinants of the results of valve surgery. Circulation. 1988; 78: 1503–1507.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2 Rahimtoola SH. Choice of prosthetic heart valve for adult patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 41: 893–904.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3 Bach DS. Choice of prosthetic heart valves: update for the next generation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 42: 1717–1719.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Oxenham H, Bloomfield P, Wheatley DJ, Lee RJ, Cunningham J, Prescott RJ, Miller HC. Twenty year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. Heart. 2003; 89: 715–721.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5 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. 2000; 36: 1152–1158.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6 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: 1486–1582.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 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), Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, de Leon AC Jr, Faxon DP, Freed MD, Gaasch WH, Lytle BW, Nishimura RA, O'Gara PT, O'Rourke RA, Otto CM, Shah PM, Shanewise JS, Smith SC Jr, Jacobs AK, Adams CD, Anderson JL, Antman EM, Fuster V, Halperin JL, Hiratzka LF, Hunt SA, Lytle BW, Nishimura R, Page RL, Riegel B. ACC/AHA 2006 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 (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: e1–e148.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 Vahanian A, Baumgartner H, Bax J, Butchart E, Dion R, Filippatos G, Flachskampf F, Hall R, Iung B, Kasprzak J, Nataf P, Tornos P, Torracca L, Wenink A, for the Task Force on the Management of Valvular Hearth Disease of the European Society of Cardiology and ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease: the Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2007; 28: 230–268.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9 Lund O, Bland M. Risk-corrected impact of mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves on long-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006; 132: 20–26.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10 Chan V, Jamieson WRE, Germann E, Chan F, Miyagishima RT, Burr LH, Janusz MT, Ling H, Fradet GJ. Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses assessed by composite of valve-related complications to 15 years after aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006; 131: 1267–1273.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11 Dagenais F, Cartier P, Voisine P, Desaulniers D, Perron J, Maillot R, Raymond G, Métras J, Doyle D, Mathieu P. Which biologic valve should we select for the 45- to 65-year-old age group requiring aortic valve replacement? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005; 129: 1041–1049.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12 David TE, Ivanov J, Armstrong S, Feindel CM, Cohen G. Late results of heart valve replacement with the Hancock II bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001; 121: 268–278.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13 Cohn LH, Collins JJ Jr, Rizzo RJ, Adams DH, Couper GS, Aranki SF. Twenty-year follow-up of the Hancock modified orifice porcine aortic valve. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998; 66 (suppl): S30–S34.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14 Banbury MK, Cosgrove DM III, White JA, Blackstone EH, Frater RWM, Okies JE. Age and valve size effect on the long-term durability of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001; 72: 753–757.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15 Bach DS, Metras J, Doty JR, Yun KL, Dumesnil JG, Kon ND. Freedom from structural valve deterioration among patients 60 years of age and younger undergoing Freestyle aortic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis. In press.Google Scholar16 Garcia D, Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Sakr F, Durand LG. Assessment of aortic valve stenosis severity: a new index based on the energy loss concept. Circulation. 2000; 101: 765–771.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17 Bakhtiary F, Dzemali O, Steinseiffer U, Schmitz C, Glasmacher B, Moritz A, Kleine P. Opening and closing kinematics of fresh and calcified aortic valve prostheses: an in vitro study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007; 134: 657–662.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18 Bakhtiary F, Abolmaali N, Dzemali O, Wittlinger T, Doss M, Moritz A, Kleine P. Impact of mechanical and biological aortic valve replacement on coronary perfusion: a prospective randomized study. J Heart Valve Dis. 2006; 15: 5–11.MedlineGoogle Scholar19 Roques F, Michel P, Gladstone AR, Nashef SAM. The logistic EuroSCORE. Eur Heart J. 2003; 24: 1–2.Google Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Zheng C, Ding K, Huang X, Li M, Wu B, Lei Y and Wang Y (2022) Nonglutaraldehyde crosslinked bioprosthetic heart valves based on 2-isocyanatoethyl methacrylate crosslinked porcine pericardium with improved properties of stability, cytocompatibility and anti-calcification, Composites Part B: Engineering, 10.1016/j.compositesb.2021.109504, 230, (109504), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2022. Schussler O, Lila N, Perneger T, Mootoosamy P, Grau J, Francois A, Smadja D, Lecarpentier Y, Ruel M and Carpentier A (2019) Recipients with blood group A associated with longer survival rates in cardiac valvular bioprostheses, EBioMedicine, 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.02.047, 42, (54-63), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2019. Zhang Q, Chen S, Shi J, Li F, Shi X, Hu X, Deng C, Shi F, Han G and Dong N (2019) Coupled OPG-Fc on Decellularized Aortic Valves by EDC/NHS Attenuates Rat MSCs Calcification In Vitro, ASAIO Journal, 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000796, 65:2, (197-204), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2019. Quimby D, Brown G, Belli E and Mohanty B (2019) The importance of surgical therapy with expansion of TAVR to low‐risk patients, Journal of Cardiac Surgery, 10.1111/jocs.14282, 34:12, (1432-1433), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2019. Fino C, Iacovoni A, Pibarot P, Pepper J, Ferrero P, Merlo M, Galletti L, Caputo M, Ferrazzi P, Anagnostopoulos C, Cugola D, Senni M, Bellavia D and Magne J (2018) Exercise Hemodynamic and Functional Capacity After Mitral Valve Replacement in Patients With Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation, Circulation: Heart Failure, 11:1, Online publication date: 1-Jan-2018. Reimer J and Tranquillo R (2018) Tissue Engineered Heart Valves Advances in Heart Valve Biomechanics, 10.1007/978-3-030-01993-8_11, (263-288), . Mao J, Wang Y, Philippe E, Cianciulli T, Vesely I, How D, Bourget J, Germain L, Zhang Z and Guidoin R (2017) Microstructural alterations owing to handling of bovine pericardium to manufacture bioprosthetic heart valves: A potential risk for cusp dehiscence, Morphologie, 10.1016/j.morpho.2017.03.003, 101:333, (77-87), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2017. Guidoin R (2017) Cardiovascular Surgery: Biomaterials Reference Module in Materials Science and Materials Engineering, 10.1016/B978-0-12-803581-8.02139-1, . Malischewski A, Moreira R, Hurtado L, Gesché V, Schmitz-Rode T, Jockenhoevel S and Mela P Umbilical cord as human cell source for mitral valve tissue engineering – venous vs. arterial cells, Biomedical Engineering / Biomedizinische Technik, 10.1515/bmt-2016-0218, 62:5 Kluin J, Talacua H, Smits A, Emmert M, Brugmans M, Fioretta E, Dijkman P, Söntjens S, Duijvelshoff R, Dekker S, Janssen-van den Broek M, Lintas V, Vink A, Hoerstrup S, Janssen H, Dankers P, Baaijens F and Bouten C (2017) In situ heart valve tissue engineering using a bioresorbable elastomeric implant – From material design to 12 months follow-up in sheep, Biomaterials, 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.02.007, 125, (101-117), Online publication date: 1-May-2017. Moreira R, Neusser C, Kruse M, Mulderrig S, Wolf F, Spillner J, Schmitz-Rode T, Jockenhoevel S and Mela P (2016) Tissue-Engineered Fibrin-Based Heart Valve with Bio-Inspired Textile Reinforcement, Advanced Healthcare Materials, 10.1002/adhm.201600300, 5:16, (2113-2121), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2016. Usprech J, Chen W and Simmons C (2016) Heart valve regeneration: the need for systems approaches, WIREs Systems Biology and Medicine, 10.1002/wsbm.1329, 8:2, (169-182), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2016. Pfannmüller B, Misfeld M, Bakhtiary F and Mohr F (2016) Konventioneller AortenklappenersatzConventional aortic valve replacement, Zeitschrift für Herz-,Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie, 10.1007/s00398-016-0095-0, 30:4, (233-246), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2016. Kajbafzadeh A, Ahmadi Tafti S, Mokhber-Dezfooli M, Khorramirouz R, Sabetkish S, Sabetkish N, Rabbani S, Tavana H and Mohseni M (2016) Aortic valve conduit implantation in the descending thoracic aorta in a sheep model: The outcomes of pre-seeded scaffold, International Journal of Surgery, 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.02.061, 28, (97-105), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2016. Choudhary S, Talwar S and Airan B (2016) Choice of prosthetic heart valve in a developing country, Heart Asia, 10.1136/heartasia-2015-010650, 8:1, (65-72), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2016. Huang S and Huang H (2014) Prediction of matrix-to-cell stress transfer in heart valve tissues, Journal of Biological Physics, 10.1007/s10867-014-9362-z, 41:1, (9-22), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2015. Mufti H, Baskett R, Arora R and Légaré J (2015) The Perception of Evidence for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Current Practices after Cardiac Surgery: A Canadian Cross-Sectional Survey, Thrombosis, 10.1155/2015/795645, 2015, (1-7), Online publication date: 2-Nov-2015. Tepeköylü C, Lobenwein D, Blunder S, Kozaryn R, Dietl M, Ritschl P, Pechriggl E, Blumer M, Bitsche M, Schistek R, Kotsch K, Fritsch H, Grimm M and Holfeld J (2014) Alteration of inflammatory response by shock wave therapy leads to reduced calcification of decellularized aortic xenografts in mice†, European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 10.1093/ejcts/ezu428, 47:3, (e80-e90), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2015., Online publication date: 1-Mar-2015. Harvey L, Bianco R, Lahti M, Carney J, Zhang L and Robinson N (2015) Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthetic valve as a valid control in preclinical in vivo ovine studies, European Journal of Pharmacology, 10.1016/j.ejphar.2015.03.033, 759, (192-199), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2015. Guenzinger R, Fiegl K, Wottke M and Lange R (2015) Twenty-Seven-Year Experience With the St. Jude Medical Biocor Bioprosthesis in the Aortic Position, The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.06.027, 100:6, (2220-2226), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2015. Harvey L, Liao K and John R (2015) Heart Valve Disease Handbook of Cardiac Anatomy, Physiology, and Devices, 10.1007/978-3-319-19464-6_34, (635-657), . Huang S and Huang H (2013) Virtualisation of stress distribution in heart valve tissue, Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 10.1080/10255842.2013.763937, 17:15, (1696-1704), Online publication date: 18-Nov-2014. Ribeiro A, Wender O, de Almeida A, Soares L and Picon P (2014) Comparison of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement with mechanical or biological substitutes: a 20 years cohort, BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 10.1186/1471-2261-14-146, 14:1, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2014. Moreira R, Gesche V, Hurtado-Aguilar L, Schmitz-Rode T, Frese J, Jockenhoevel S and Mela P (2014) TexMi: Development of Tissue-Engineered Textile-Reinforced Mitral Valve Prosthesis, Tissue Engineering Part C: Methods, 10.1089/ten.tec.2013.0426, 20:9, (741-748), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2014. Schoen F and Padera R (2013) Substitute Heart Valves Biomaterials Science, 10.1016/B978-0-08-087780-8.00067-X, (761-771), . Quinn R (2013) Animal models for bench to bedside translation of regenerative cardiac constructs, Progress in Pediatric Cardiology, 10.1016/j.ppedcard.2013.08.001, 35:2, (91-94), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2013. John R and Liao K (2013) Heart Valve Disease Heart Valves, 10.1007/978-1-4614-6144-9_6, (121-158), . Hopkins R (2013) State of the art and science for clinical translation of regenerative cardiac surgery, Progress in Pediatric Cardiology, 10.1016/j.ppedcard.2013.07.001, 35:2, (79-85), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2013. Carabello B (2012) Valvular Heart Disease Goldman's Cecil Medicine, 10.1016/B978-1-4377-1604-7.00075-0, (453-464), . Astudillo L, Santana O, Urbandt P, Benjo A, Elkayam L, Nascimento F, Lamas G and Lamelas J (2012) Clinical predictors of prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, Clinics, 10.6061/clinics/2012(01)09, 67:1, (55-60), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2012. Comas G, McIver B and Thourani V (2012) Innovations in aortic valve therapy for elderly patients, Aging Health, 10.2217/ahe.12.13, 8:2, (179-189), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2012. Siyao Huang and Huang H (2012) Virtual experiments of heart valve tissues 2012 34th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 10.1109/EMBC.2012.6347518, 978-1-4577-1787-1, (6645-6648) Claessens T, Degroote J, Vierendeels J, Van Ransbeeck P, Segers P and Verdonck P (2010) Mechanical Valve Fluid Dynamics and Thrombus Initiation Image-Based Computational Modeling of the Human Circulatory and Pulmonary Systems, 10.1007/978-1-4419-7350-4_12, (437-462), . Quinn R, Hilbert S, Bert A, Drake B, Bustamante J, Fenton J, Moriarty S, Neighbors S, Lofland G and Hopkins R (2011) Performance and Morphology of Decellularized Pulmonary Valves Implanted in Juvenile Sheep, The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.03.039, 92:1, (131-137), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2011. Kim H, Lu J and Chandran K (2010) Native Human and Bioprosthetic Heart Valve Dynamics Image-Based Computational Modeling of the Human Circulatory and Pulmonary Systems, 10.1007/978-1-4419-7350-4_11, (403-435), . Simonet M, Driessen-Mol A, Baaijens F and Bouten C (2011) Heart valve tissue regeneration Electrospinning for Tissue Regeneration, 10.1533/9780857092915.2.202, (202-224), . Mario Bollati, Emanuele Tizzani, Claudio Moretti, Filippo Sc (2010) The future of new aortic valve replacement approaches, Future Cardiology, 10.2217/fca.10.14, 6:3, (351-360), Online publication date: 1-May-2010. Ennker J, Albert A and Florath I (2010) Medtronic stentless Freestyle® porcine aortic valve replacement Aortic Root Surgery, 10.1007/978-3-7985-1869-8_26, (366-385), . Sheikh A and Livesey S (2010) Surgical management of valve disease in the early 21st century, Clinical Medicine, 10.7861/clinmedicine.10-2-177, 10:2, (177-181), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2010. Bockeria L, Scopin I and Makushin A (2010) eComment: Re: Mid-term evaluation of Sorin Soprano bioprostheses in patients with a small aortic annulus ≤20 mm, Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, 10.1510/icvts.2009.217844A, 10:3, (402-402), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2010. Albert A and Ennker J (2010) Aortenklappenersatz mit gerüstlosen BioprothesenAortic valve replacement using stentless bioprostheses, Zeitschrift für Herz-,Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie, 10.1007/s00398-010-0774-1, 24:3, (147-154), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2010. Dominik J and Zacek P (2010) Choice of the Optimal Valve for Replacement Heart Valve Surgery, 10.1007/978-3-642-12206-4_4, (81-101), . Hanson J, Broussard J, Durning S, DeGraba T, Haigney M, Fortuin N and Williams M (2009) Evaluation of Exercise-Induced Cerebrovascular Accidents After Aortic Valve Replacement, Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 10.4065/84.6.558, 84:6, (558-560), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2009. John R and Liao K (2009) Heart Valve Disease Handbook of Cardiac Anatomy, Physiology, and Devices, 10.1007/978-1-60327-372-5_31, (527-549), . Brown J, O'Brien S, Wu C, Sikora J, Griffith B and Gammie J (2009) Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: Changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database, The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.08.015, 137:1, (82-90), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2009. Mol A, Smits A, Bouten C and Baaijens F (2014) Tissue engineering of heart valves: advances and current challenges, Expert Review of Medical Devices, 10.1586/erd.09.12, 6:3, (259-275), Online publication date: 1-May-2009. Chiam P and Ruiz C (2009) Percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Evolution of the technology, American Heart Journal, 10.1016/j.ahj.2008.10.003, 157:2, (229-242), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2009. Gasparovic H (2009) Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch in the Elderly, The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2009.01.008, 88:2, (709-710), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2009. Barbarash L, Rogulina N, Rutkovskaya N and Ovcharenko E (2018) MECHANISMS UNDERLYING BIOPROSTHETIC HEART VALVE DYSFUNCTIONS, Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases, 10.17802/2306-1278-2018-7-2-10-24, 7:2, (10-24) January 15, 2008Vol 117, Issue 2 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.736819PMID: 18195186 Originally publishedJanuary 15, 2008 PDF download Advertisement SubjectsAnticoagulantsCardiovascular SurgeryCatheter-Based Coronary and Valvular InterventionsCerebrovascular Disease/StrokeClinical StudiesIntracranial HemorrhageValvular Heart Disease
Referência(s)