ライフサイエンスコーパス: bioprosthetic

1 .75, P = 0.01, native; rho = 0.42, P = 0.08, bioprosthetic).

2 The choice between bioprosthetic and mechanical aortic valve replacement in

3 ival and valve-related complications between bioprosthetic and mechanical heart valves.

4 equiring valve replacement, deciding between bioprosthetic and mechanical prosthetic valves is challe

5 tis and anticoagulant-related hemorrhage for bioprosthetic and mechanical valve patients were similar

6 nts that overcome the current limitations of bioprosthetic and mechanical valves.

7 n suggests a highly coordinated mechanism of bioprosthetic and native valve calcification analogous t

8 cal studies have evaluated the durability of bioprosthetics and surgical strategies, tested statins d

9 The death of a child with accelerated bioprosthetic aortic stenosis prompted enhanced surveill

10 ication of glutaraldehyde-pretreated porcine bioprosthetic aortic valve cusps by 80.0% ethanol in rat

11 he applicability of the framework to predict bioprosthetic aortic valve deformations.

12 hy (PET)-computed tomography (CT) can detect bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration and predict valv

13 Bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration is increasingly

14 rasound-triamcinolone-lidocaine group with a bioprosthetic aortic valve died from subacute bacterial

15 Subjects with severe native or bioprosthetic aortic valve disease at high or extreme ri

16 In high-risk patients, TAVR for bioprosthetic aortic valve failure is associated with re

17 At 3-year follow-up, TAVR for bioprosthetic aortic valve failure was associated with f

18 f disagreement, and evidence gaps related to bioprosthetic aortic valve hemodynamics.

19 Modification of failed bioprosthetic aortic valve leaflets using ShortCut was s

20 on the impact of anticoagulation (AC) after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) on valve he

21 oved survival of patients undergoing primary bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR), reoperatio

22 free survival of patients undergoing primary bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR), reoperatio

23 tion in the early postoperative period after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (bAVR).

24 rehensive overview of reported outcome after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement and to translate

25 Impaired functional performance of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement is associated wit

26 l leaflet thrombosis has been reported after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, characterized us

27 relatively rare in the first 3 months after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement.

28 going the Ross procedure and those receiving bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements (AVRs).

29 Left Atrial Appendage in Patients Undergoing Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Surgery), and LAACS-2 trial (

30 anisms, diagnosis, and optimal management of bioprosthetic aortic valve thrombosis after transcathete

31 Bioprosthetic aortic valve thrombosis is frequently dete

32 Subclinical leaflet thrombosis of bioprosthetic aortic valves after transcatheter valve re

33 EA) to learn the deformation biomechanics of bioprosthetic aortic valves directly from simulations.

34 let thickening and reduced leaflet motion of bioprosthetic aortic valves have been documented by four

35 replacement (TAVR) for degenerated surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves is associated with favorable

36 The performance of bioprosthetic aortic valves is usually assessed in singl

37 spective study enrolled patients with failed bioprosthetic aortic valves scheduled to undergo TAVI an

38 the durability of transcatheter and surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves using standardized criteria.

39 Patients with bioprosthetic aortic valves were recruited into 2 cohort

40 al leaflet thrombosis occurred frequently in bioprosthetic aortic valves, more commonly in transcathe

41 valve-in-valve implantation for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, overall 1-year survival was

42 fast decision support for designing surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves.

43 ve leaflet motion was shown in patients with bioprosthetic aortic valves.

44 Reoperation was significantly higher for bioprosthetic AVR (p = 0.004).

45 A total of 4,832 patients undergoing bioprosthetic AVR (transcatheter aortic valve replacemen

46 s who underwent a Ross procedure or surgical bioprosthetic AVR at the Toronto General Hospital betwee

47 In the short term, early AC after bioprosthetic AVR did not result in adverse clinical eve

48 Whether early AC after bioprosthetic AVR has impact on long-term outcomes remai

49 While mechanical AVR and bioprosthetic AVR have historically been the standards o

50 provides further evidence against the use of bioprosthetic AVR in young patients.

51 study aimed to assess the impact of AC after bioprosthetic AVR on valve hemodynamics and clinical out

52 istry, 4075 patients were identified who had bioprosthetic AVR surgery performed between January 1, 1

53 of warfarin treatment within 6 months after bioprosthetic AVR surgery was associated with increased

54 cal AVR (mAVR), homograft AVR (hAVR), and/or bioprosthetic AVR were considered for inclusion.

55 risk-adjusted survival benefit compared with bioprosthetic AVR.

56 m adverse valve-related events compared with bioprosthetic AVR.

57 nt valve intervention in those who receive a bioprosthetic AVR.

58 tients with severe AS who are candidates for bioprosthetic AVR.

59 who underwent aortic valve replacement with bioprosthetic compared with mechanical valves, there was

60 stroke rates were observed in patients with bioprosthetic compared with mechanical valves.

61 nduits in sequential cohorts and compared to bioprosthetic conduits.

62 was the only independent predictor of future bioprosthetic dysfunction.

63 he primary indication for reintervention was bioprosthetic failure (79.3%).

64 Bioprosthetic failure was secondary to stenosis in 6 (26

65 to balloon-injured carotid arteries and into bioprosthetic grafts in rabbits led to rapid endothelial

66 umber of disease processes including porcine bioprosthetic heart valve calcification and atherosclero

67 ally based approach and may prevent calcific bioprosthetic heart valve failure.

68 wall segments of AlCl(3)-pretreated porcine bioprosthetic heart valve implants as compared to contro

69 cedural mortality, the correct position of 1 bioprosthetic heart valve in the proper anatomical locat

70 cular diseases including atherosclerosis and bioprosthetic heart valve mineralization.

71 Bioprosthetic heart valves (BHV) fabricated from glutara

72 Bioprosthetic heart valves (BHV), made from glutaraldehy

73 s (MHV), which are implanted surgically, and bioprosthetic heart valves (BHV), which can be implanted

74 Bioprosthetic heart valves (BHVs) are commonly used as h

75 Bioprosthetic heart valves (BHVs) are commonly used to r

76 Porcine bioprosthetic heart valves and native human heart valves

77 Calcification of the cusps of bioprosthetic heart valves fabricated from either glutar

78 t practice guidelines proscribing the use of bioprosthetic heart valves in hemodialysis patients shou

79 alcification resistance when used to prepare bioprosthetic heart valves.

80 urgitant failure in native human and porcine bioprosthetic heart valves.

81 Patient data refer to bioprosthetic implantations performed from November 1988

82 Embolic events, stroke, annular injury, and bioprosthetic leaflet injury were not observed.

83 (18)F-NaF uptake in the bioprosthetic leaflets was comparable between the SAVR a

84 nt Candida albicans biofilm models formed on bioprosthetic materials, we demonstrated that biofilm fo

85 n in patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve remain uncertain.

86 Even though these findings suggest bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement may be a reasonab

87 score who underwent mechanical prosthetic vs bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement.

88 In patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve, rivaroxaban was noninferior

89 ) in patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve.

90 ved between use of mechanical prosthetic and bioprosthetic mitral valves in patients aged 50 to 69 ye

91 or the majority of patients with degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves, who are anatomical candidat

92 tral valves compared with those who received bioprosthetic mitral valves; however, the incidence of r

93 th severe MAC, failed annuloplasty ring, and bioprosthetic MV dysfunction is associated with improvem

94 al annuloplasty ring repair, or prior failed bioprosthetic MV replacement who were at high surgical r

95 A total of 109,842 patients underwent bioprosthetic (n = 94,125) or mechanical (n = 15,717) AV

96 cal AVR obstruction (group A) to 43 cases of bioprosthetic obstruction (group B).

97 All patients undergoing primary isolated bioprosthetic or mechanical AVR were identified.

98 The choice of bioprosthetic or mechanical surgical aortic valve replac

99 medical centers were randomized to receive a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve.

100 Bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional lacer

101 The bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional lacer

102 r electrosurgical aortic leaflet laceration (Bioprosthetic or Native Aortic Scallop Intentional Lacer

103 HODS AND We studied 191 patients with severe bioprosthetic PAS (63+/-16 years, 58% men) who underwent

104 We studied 276 patients with severe bioprosthetic PAS (64+/-16 years, 58% men) who underwent

105 the characteristics of patients with severe bioprosthetic PAS undergoing redo AVR, and (2) assess th

106 c/minimally symptomatic patients with severe bioprosthetic PAS undergoing redo AVR, baseline LV-GLS p

107 experienced center, in patients with severe bioprosthetic PAS undergoing redo AVR, the majority unde

108 different mechanical PHV and among different bioprosthetic PHV.

109 ed seventy-one subjects with RVOT conduit or bioprosthetic pulmonary valve dysfunction were enrolled.

110 anagement of patients with RVOT conduits and bioprosthetic pulmonary valves by providing sustained sy

111 tions for intervention for failing implanted bioprosthetic pulmonary valves, and considers a new appr

112 ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) conduits or bioprosthetic pulmonary valves, while preserving RV func

113 Current prosthetic or bioprosthetic replacement devices are imperfect and subj

114 ical correlates of HALT and RLM after aortic bioprosthetic replacement.

115 arisons were made with matched patients with bioprosthetic SAVR (n=51) who had undergone the same ima

116 included all patients who underwent primary bioprosthetic SAVR in Sweden from 2003 to 2018.

117 vational cohort study, patients with TAVI or bioprosthetic SAVR underwent baseline echocardiography,

118 TAVI degeneration is of similar magnitude to bioprosthetic SAVR, suggesting comparable midterm durabi

119 ospitalization, and reintervention following bioprosthetic SAVR.

120 cohort A randomized patients 1:1 to TAVR or bioprosthetic SAVR.

121 ve demonstrated the effectiveness of a novel bioprosthetic scaffold.

122 st series of such patients with degenerative bioprosthetic stenosis or regurgitation successfully tre

123 pe 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) on postoperative bioprosthetic structural valve degeneration.

124 f Saccharomyces cerevisiae, which adhered to bioprosthetic surfaces but failed to form a mature biofi

125 s with TAVI in comparison with subjects with bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

126 r transcatheter aortic valve replacement and bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement.

127 ortic valve replacement (TAVR) within failed bioprosthetic surgical aortic valves has shown that valv

128 anscatheter valve implantation inside failed bioprosthetic surgical valves (valve-in-valve [ViV]) may

129 Bioprosthetic tissue valves are the valves of choice in

130 valvular heart disease proscribe the use of bioprosthetic (tissue) valves in hemodialysis patients.

131 However, currently used bioprosthetic transcatheter valves are prone to progress

132 and defibrillator leads on the incidence of bioprosthetic tricuspid valve (BTV) regurgitation compar

133 reported in nonconduit positions such as in bioprosthetic tricuspid valves, branch pulmonary arterie

134 Data were collected on 156 patients with bioprosthetic TV dysfunction who underwent catheterizati

135 I: 1.4-4.3]; P = 0.001), TPVR into a stented bioprosthetic valve (1.7 [95% CI: 1.2-2.5]; P = 0.007),

136 es were used to identify patients undergoing bioprosthetic valve (35.21) or mechanical valve (35.22)

137 Bioprosthetic valve (BPV) thrombosis is considered a rel

138 Smaller body size and the use of a bioprosthetic valve are significantly associated with PP

139 vances in the imaging of aortic stenosis and bioprosthetic valve degeneration and explore how these t

140 The frequencies of imaging evidence of bioprosthetic valve degeneration at baseline were simila

141 isk of native valve stenosis progression and bioprosthetic valve degeneration in research trials.

142 The current standard of care for treating bioprosthetic valve degeneration involves redo open-hear

143 (18)F-fluoride PET-CT identifies subclinical bioprosthetic valve degeneration, providing powerful pre

144 y the clinical and metabolic determinants of bioprosthetic valve degeneration.

145 ves that require replacement, catheter-based bioprosthetic valve deployment offers a minimally invasi

146 ess native aortic valve disease activity and bioprosthetic valve durability in patients with TAVI in

147 retained native aortic valve, and regarding bioprosthetic valve durability, after transcatheter aort

148 In this paper, we provide an overview of bioprosthetic valve durability, focusing on the definiti

149 ferences in late adverse clinical events and bioprosthetic valve durability.

150 o investigate the impact of BPD on long-term bioprosthetic valve durability.

151 r, SEV implantation was associated with less bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (8.4% vs 41.8%; absolute

152 Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) and bioprosthetic

153 The incidence and clinical importance of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) in patients underg

154 s of long-term all-cause mortality and early bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD), defined as increa

155 e compared to those with other mechanisms of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD).

156 ances, cardiac structural complications, and bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure (including v

157 s to develop a new classification schema for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure.

158 Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and reoperations/reinter

159 outcomes and a markedly reduced incidence of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction through 12 months, inclu

160 hree consecutive patients with severe mitral bioprosthetic valve dysfunction underwent transapical mi

161 essment of Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Bioprosthetic Valve Dysfunction With Multimodality Imagi

162 alve function end point was the incidence of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction, both assessed through 1

163 ted tomography (CT), may represent a form of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction.

164 report a case of Gemella morbillorum mitral bioprosthetic valve endocarditis with perivalvular exten

165 I, 0.15-0.95]; P=0.039), and a lower rate of bioprosthetic valve failure (2.8% versus 5.1%; subdistri

166 hocardiographic follow-up and/or SVD-related bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) at 5 years.

167 Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) may be caused by struc

168 Bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) was defined as: valve-

169 ate into differences in clinical outcomes or bioprosthetic valve failure 3 years after transcatheter

170 tients who had undergone Redo TAVI for Lotus bioprosthetic valve failure in 5 centers.

171 Bioprosthetic valve failure is reported for the valve-im

172 Bioprosthetic valve failure occurred in 19 patients with

173 rs) structural valve deterioration (SVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure of transcatheter aortic biop

174 The 5-year bioprosthetic valve failure rate was 2.7%, including a 0

175 Bioprosthetic valve failure rates were also comparable:

176 Furthermore, bioprosthetic valve failure rates were low with no incid

177 nificant differences in clinical outcomes or bioprosthetic valve failure throughout 3 years.

178 Incidence of SVD and bioprosthetic valve failure were defined according to ne

179 The incidences of SVD and bioprosthetic valve failure were not significantly diffe

180 2 and 3 hemodynamic valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure, along with improved biopros

181 hrombosis is rare (1.2%) and associated with bioprosthetic valve failure, neurologic or thromboemboli

182 ncluding hemodynamic valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure, were similar for TAVR and s

183 atheter heart valves (THVs) and present with bioprosthetic valve failure.

184 e 2 and 3 hemodynamic valve deterioration or bioprosthetic valve failure.

185 sive alternative for high-risk patients with bioprosthetic valve failure.

186 lve degeneration (SVD) is the major cause of bioprosthetic valve failure.

187 Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) using a high-pressure

188 Patients in the bioprosthetic valve group had a greater likelihood of re

189 rosthetic valve failure, along with improved bioprosthetic valve hemodynamic parameters over time.

190 Patients with type 2 DM undergoing bioprosthetic valve implantation are at high risk of ear

191 determined the relative risk of receiving a bioprosthetic valve in different volume deciles, with ad

192 ccurred >12 months post-implantation; median bioprosthetic valve longevity was 24 months (cases) vers

193 ng stroke, associated clinical outcomes, and bioprosthetic valve performance at 3 years between TAVR

194 perience have improved procedural safety and bioprosthetic valve performance.

195 onary valve implantation using a stent-based bioprosthetic valve provides an alternative to surgery i

196 e repair seems low, valve replacement with a bioprosthetic valve should be performed.

197 Bioprosthetic valve thrombosis (BPVT) is considered unco

198 Early in the prevention and treatment of bioprosthetic valve thrombosis (BPVT), anticoagulation i

199 Similarly, the rates of bioprosthetic valve use for patients aged >65 years rose

200 Bioprosthetic valve use has increased significantly.

201 Hospital volume was a strong predictor of bioprosthetic valve use in older patients undergoing AVR

202 Bioprosthetic valve use increased (P<0.001) from 44% in

203 d estimating equations, the relative risk of bioprosthetic valve use, relative to the 1st decile, pro

204 AVR with a bioprosthetic valve was associated with progressive LV h

205 s no deterioration in the functioning of the bioprosthetic valve, as assessed by evidence of stenosis

206 survival with a mechanical valve than with a bioprosthetic valve, largely because primary valve failu

207 dely implant the MCV system into the failing bioprosthetic valve.

208 more often and were more likely to receive a bioprosthetic valve.

209 anical valve and in 18 patients (12%) with a bioprosthetic valve.

210 3 (24%) with a conduit; and 194 (25%) with a bioprosthetic valve.

211 the use of a mechanical valve (23% versus 6% bioprosthetic valve; P=0.01) CONCLUSIONS: Tricuspid valv

212 riority) and a composite end point measuring bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction (tested for superiority)

213 estimate of the percentage of patients with bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction through 12 months was 9.

214 al outcomes and was superior with respect to bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction through 12 months.

215 3.5% and 32.8%; and percentage of women with bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction, 10.2% and 43.3% (all P<

216 Bioprosthetic-valve failure occurred in 3.3% of the pati

217 cant data on long-term clinical outcomes and bioprosthetic-valve function after transcatheter aortic-

218 Prosthetic failure was identified in three bioprosthetic valves (2%); furthermore, the 4 patients i

219 istry included 202 patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves (aged 77.7+/-10.4 years; 52.5% men)

220 Most patients received bioprosthetic valves (AVR+ARE: 73.4% versus AVR: 73.3%,

221 mes in young patients who underwent AVR with bioprosthetic valves (Bio_AVR group) versus mechanical p

222 Melody-in-bioprosthetic valves (BPV) is currently considered an of

223 outcomes in women with normally functioning bioprosthetic valves (BPVs) are often good, structural v

224 indications to younger patients, the use of bioprosthetic valves (BPVs) has considerably increased.

225 We compared the use of bioprosthetic valves (BPVs) in 78,154 black and white Me

226 negative mRNA signal status, both calcified bioprosthetic valves (P = 0.03) and calcified native val

227 comes of TMVR in patients with failed mitral bioprosthetic valves (valve-in-valve [ViV]) and annulopl

228 tion into a wide range of degenerated aortic bioprosthetic valves - irrespective of the failure mode

229 ECM TVs were placed in 8 lambs; conventional bioprosthetic valves and native valves (NV) were studied

230 Bioprosthetic valves are a good replacement alternative

231 For older patients with NVE, bioprosthetic valves are appropriate and offer favorable

232 patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis, bioprosthetic valves are reasonable given diminished lon

233 Bioprosthetic valves are recommended for patients aged >

234 All ex vivo, degenerate bioprosthetic valves displayed (18)F-fluoride PET uptake

235 long-term assessment of transcatheter aortic bioprosthetic valves durability is limited by the poor s

236 of calcified versus noncalcified native and bioprosthetic valves for averaged total matrix protein m

237 xplanted self-expanding transcatheter aortic bioprosthetic valves from clinical trials and to compare

238 Both surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic valves have limited durability because of

239 The lower use of bioprosthetic valves in low-volume hospitals is at odds

240 tween hospital volume and recommended use of bioprosthetic valves in older patients undergoing aortic

241 at odds with recent guidelines recommending bioprosthetic valves in patients aged > or =65 years.

242 Many centers advocate bioprosthetic valves in the elderly to avoid anticoagula

243 ricular septal defects; (d) the placement of bioprosthetic valves in the pulmonary and aortic positio

244 The durability of transcatheter aortic bioprosthetic valves is a crucial issue, but data are sc

245 High implantation inside failed bioprosthetic valves is a strong independent correlate o

246 These findings suggest that bioprosthetic valves may be a reasonable choice in patie

247 nction compared to clinically used pediatric bioprosthetic valves tested in the same model.

248 The percentage of bioprosthetic valves that failed was 6.9% in the TAVR gr

249 that included 459 patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves undergoing valve-in-valve implantat

250 Explanted degenerate bioprosthetic valves were examined ex vivo.

251 Bioprosthetic valves were implanted in 969 patients (88%

252 otal of 203 consecutive patients with aortic bioprosthetic valves were recruited.

253 AVR can be managed with either mechanical or bioprosthetic valves with similar early and late risk, a

254 9.6 years, 70% female, 96.7% failed surgical bioprosthetic valves, 63.3% single splitting and 36.7% d

255 Compared with bioprosthetic valves, freedom from structural valve dete

256 led to the development of mechanical valves, bioprosthetic valves, homografts, stented valves, the Ro

257 on after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with bioprosthetic valves, leading to cycles of left ventricu

258 ves will have similar durability as surgical bioprosthetic valves.

259 of developing SVD among patients with aortic bioprosthetic valves.

260 e vast majority of patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves.

261 are undergoing aortic valve replacement with bioprosthetic valves.

262 es and the enhanced haemodynamic function of bioprosthetic valves.

263 stricted to slightly modified mechanical and bioprosthetic valves.

264 All four patients had bioprosthetic valves.

265 and calcification (rho = 0.52, P = 0.06) for bioprosthetic valves.

266 ration and the surveillance of patients with bioprosthetic valves.

267 thetic valve failure of transcatheter aortic bioprosthetic valves.

268 ies demonstrates specific subgroups in which bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves are preferable.

269 ty rates were similar for those who received bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves.

270 Bioprosthetic vs mechanical prosthetic mitral valve repl

271 mary isolated aortic valve replacement using bioprosthetic vs mechanical valves in New York State fro