ライフサイエンスコーパス: bioprosthesis

1 g, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis.

2 patients are expected to outlive the initial bioprosthesis.

3 e either a Soprano or Mitroflow/Crown aortic bioprosthesis.

4 gh-risk patients with failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis.

5 after replacement of the aortic valve with a bioprosthesis.

6 thesis than in those treated with a surgical bioprosthesis.

7 en suspected in the last models of Mitroflow bioprosthesis.

8 valve, and in those with a previous surgical bioprosthesis.

9 table to the risk of uneven expansion of the bioprosthesis.

10 gh-risk patients with a failing aortic valve bioprosthesis.

11 ndergone a TAVI with the Medtronic-CoreValve bioprosthesis.

12 is between a mechanical valve and a stented bioprosthesis.

13 e, and structural valve deterioration with a bioprosthesis.

14 sing a second-generation stented pericardial bioprosthesis.

15 theses compares with the traditional porcine bioprosthesis.

16 Reoperation was more common for AVR with bioprosthesis.

17 ment for aortic valves used as allografts or bioprosthesis.

18 ble with the more contemporary SAPIEN 3 (S3) bioprosthesis.

19 Implant substrate included homograft (41%), bioprosthesis (30%), native right ventricular outflow tr

20 R was lower with the mechanical valve versus bioprosthesis (66% vs. 79%, p = 0.02) but not after MVR.

21 Structural valve deterioration of bioprosthesis after MVR is higher than after AVR; after

22 mptomatic patients with failing aortic valve bioprosthesis, aged >/=65 years with a logistic EuroSCOR

23 ernative for patients with a failed surgical bioprosthesis and may obviate the need for reoperation.

24 AVR was not significantly different between bioprosthesis and mechanical valve.

25 mance of the Carpentier-Edwards (CE) porcine bioprosthesis and the CE pericardial bioprosthesis for a

26 annular stented prosthetic valves, stentless bioprosthesis, and sutureless bioprostheses have been pr

27 e durability of the Hancock Modified Orifice bioprosthesis aortic valve in a multi-institutional stud

28 w-up, 13.7 months) with a bovine pericardial bioprosthesis at </=30 years of age.

29 transfemorally with a self-expanding aortic bioprosthesis at 41 centers.

30 s procedure, 37.8% a mechanical AVR, 10.9% a bioprosthesis AVR, and 3.5% a homograft AVR, with Ross p

31 ortic root surgery (AVS, n = 253; CVG with a bioprosthesis [bio-CVG], n = 180; CVG with a mechanical

32 inal hernia, recurrence, infection, fistula, bioprosthesis, biocompatible materials, absorbable impla

33 Primary valve failure was greater with bioprosthesis, both for AVR and MVR, and occurred at a m

34 xaminations were performed for assessment of bioprosthesis calcification and abdominal adiposity.

35 the obstruction cause (pannus or thrombus), bioprosthesis calcifications, and endocarditis extent (v

36 Bioprosthesis degeneration was observed in 7 cases and a

37 d symptomatic patients with a failing mitral bioprosthesis demonstrating greater than or equal to mod

38 (18F-Fluoride Assessment of Aortic Bioprosthesis Durability and Outcome [18F-FAABULOUS]; NC

39 valves were implanted in 16 patients with TV bioprosthesis dysfunction (9 females) from 2 centers.

40 h of the 10 patients who developed new overt bioprosthesis dysfunction during follow-up had evidence

41 In 71 patients without known bioprosthesis dysfunction, 14 had abnormal leaflet patho

42 The Edwards SAPIEN Aortic Bioprosthesis European Outcome (SOURCE) Registry was des

43 The SAPIEN Aortic Bioprosthesis European Outcome (SOURCE) Registry was des

44 re enrolled in the SOURCE 3 (SAPIEN 3 Aortic Bioprosthesis European Outcome) European registry for tr

45 The SOURCE 3 Registry (SAPIEN Aortic Bioprosthesis European Outcome) is a European multicente

46 Modes of bioprosthesis failure were stenosis (n = 181 [39.4%]), r

47 information for patients treated for aortic bioprosthesis failure with isolated VIV TAVR or redo SAV

48 (SAVR) represent the 2 treatments for aortic bioprosthesis failure.

49 mes of patients with the Freestyle stentless bioprosthesis followed for </=18 years.

50 porcine bioprosthesis and the CE pericardial bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR).

51 RATE Neo/TF Compared to the Edwards SAPIEN 3 Bioprosthesis for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantatio

52 ember 2022 using SAPIEN 3 and SAPIEN 3 Ultra bioprosthesis from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/Amer

53 e incidence of reoperation was higher in the bioprosthesis group (12.1% [95% CI, 8.8%-15.4%] vs 6.9%

54 f stroke was 7.7% (95% CI, 5.7%-9.7%) in the bioprosthesis group and 8.6% (95% CI, 6.2%-11.0%) in the

55 vival was 60.6% (95% CI, 56.3%-64.9%) in the bioprosthesis group compared with 62.1% (95% CI, 58.2%-6

56 echanical prosthesis group compared with the bioprosthesis group.

57 ceiving a mechanical valve, patients given a bioprosthesis had a similar adjusted risk for death (haz

58 atched population of young adults, where the bioprosthesis had the lowest event-free probability of 7

59 replacement (VIV-TAVR) in degenerated aortic bioprosthesis has been increasing, but the Food and Drug

60 Bioprosthesis have a low rate of SVD in the older patien

61 er than after AVR; after AVR, homografts and bioprosthesis have similar rates of SVD.

62 Owing to a considerable shift toward bioprosthesis implantation rather than mechanical valves

63 ergoing either TAVR or surgical aortic-valve bioprosthesis implantation.

64 heart with a right atrial to right ventricle bioprosthesis in 3, Ebstein's anomaly of the TV in 5, an

65 Aortic valve replacement with the Freestyle bioprosthesis in a subcoronary position provides good lo

66 r aortic valve replacement (AVR) than with a bioprosthesis in the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA

67 ry aortic valve replacement with a Freestyle bioprosthesis in the subcoronary position.

68 lve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding bioprosthesis is a potentially effective therapy.

69 within 1 year included having small surgical bioprosthesis (</=21 mm; hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.1

70 potential of a tubular tricuspid valve (TV) bioprosthesis made of SIS-ECM by evaluating its growth,

71 Bioprosthesis mode of failure was stenosis (n=85; 42%),

72 Early SVD is frequent in Mitroflow bioprosthesis (models 12A/LX), especially for small size

73 They also received smaller and biological bioprosthesis more often (all P<0.01).

74 e-negative staphylococci (n = 66, 36.7%), on bioprosthesis (n = 111, 61.7%), mechanical valve (n = 67

75 stenosis who underwent isolated SAVR with a bioprosthesis (n = 8,353) were risk-stratified before su

76 rosthesis (n=81) or the Prima Plus stentless bioprosthesis (n =80).

77 to receive either the C-E Perimount stented bioprosthesis (n=81) or the Prima Plus stentless biopros

78 rom SVD and reoperation makes it our current bioprosthesis of choice for AVR in appropriately selecte

79 egnancy and suffering from failure of mitral bioprosthesis or annuloplasty.

80 y assigned 1:1 to TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis or SAVR (N=747).

81 lve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding bioprosthesis or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR

82 ent (TAVR) with the CoreValve self-expanding bioprosthesis or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR

83 prosthesis compared with 56.6% and 15.7% for bioprosthesis (P < 0.0001).

84 ve (p = 0.023), and previous surgical aortic bioprosthesis (p = 0.045).

85 enerally consistent among patient subgroups, bioprosthesis patients aged 65 to 69 years had a substan

86 on, aortic stenosis, or prior valve surgery (bioprosthesis replacement, valve repair, valvuloplasty).

87 e in valve (MViV) replacement of degenerated bioprosthesis reported early experience in the United St

88 Of them, 602 (35.7%) had a surgical bioprosthesis (SB), 666 (39.5%) a mechanical prosthesis,

89 surveillance and suggesting that this aortic bioprosthesis should not be implanted in the young.

90 The choice of initial bioprosthesis should therefore consider the relative saf

91 anticoagulation in the setting of an aortic bioprosthesis significantly increases bleeding risk with

92 to aortic valve replacement with a surgical bioprosthesis (surgical group).

93 a self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve bioprosthesis than in those treated with a surgical biop

94 RATE Neo/TF Compared to the Edwards SAPIEN 3 Bioprosthesis), transcatheter aortic valve implantation

95 on was detected among patients with multiple bioprosthesis types, including transcatheter and surgica

96 ession were used for all-cause mortality and bioprosthesis valve dysfunction was used, respectively.

97 65 years after AVR, primary valve failure in bioprosthesis versus mechanical valve was 9 +/- 6% versu

98 andomized 1:1 to TAVR using a self-expanding bioprosthesis versus SAVR.

99 ndomized trial of TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis versus surgical aortic valve replacement (

100 r, based on the analogy with surgical mitral bioprosthesis, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are predomin

101 ccurred mainly in patients <65 years of age (bioprosthesis vs. mechanical, 26% vs. 0%, p < 0.001 for

102 a self-expanding transcatheter aortic-valve bioprosthesis was associated with a significantly higher

103 ther anticoagulation in the setting of a new bioprosthesis was associated with improved outcomes or g

104 hich TAVR with a self-expanding supraannular bioprosthesis was compared with surgical aortic-valve re

105 isk, TAVR with a self-expanding supraannular bioprosthesis was noninferior to surgery with respect to

106 TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis was safe and effective in patients with sy

107 owered for noninferiority of the ACURATE neo bioprosthesis, was all-cause death or stroke at 1 year.

108 , powered for superiority of the ACURATE neo bioprosthesis, was new permanent pacemaker implantation

109 he DVA and the Edinburgh Heart Valve trials, bioprosthesis were associated with structural valve dete

110 se (mainly mitral with severe MAC) or failed bioprosthesis were consecutively enrolled between March

111 ors when only patients treated with the MCRS bioprosthesis were considered.

112 dy treated with the self-expanding CoreValve bioprosthesis were included in this analysis.

113 Younger age and use of a bioprosthesis were predictors of late reoperation.

114 riate analysis, smaller BSA and the use of a bioprosthesis were the strongest predictors of PPR (p <

115 mmend a threshold of >=65 years for surgical bioprosthesis, whereas the American guidelines employ mu

116 a self-expanding transcatheter aortic-valve bioprosthesis, with surgical aortic-valve replacement in