ライフサイエンスコーパス: mechanical valve

1 ere randomized to receive a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve.

2 ng occurred more frequently in patients with mechanical valve.

3 ficantly different between bioprosthesis and mechanical valve.

4 mary valve failure was virtually absent with mechanical valve.

5 stheses, but bleeding was more common with a mechanical valve.

6 is on the clinical risks associated with the mechanical valve.

7 omen with a biological valve compared with a mechanical valve.

8 ess rate in patients with hemolysis and/or a mechanical valve.

9 reased risk was unrelated to AF and inserted mechanical valves.

10 low controlled by rotation speed without any mechanical valves.

11 from reoperation and survival compared with mechanical valves.

12 in patients with bioprosthetic compared with mechanical valves.

13 for those who received bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves.

14 ation is significantly better with bileaflet mechanical valves.

15 the current limitations of bioprosthetic and mechanical valves.

16 unction (1C), endocarditis in native (2C) or mechanical valves (1B), great vessel disease and injury

17 mplantation was associated with the use of a mechanical valve (23% versus 6% bioprosthetic valve; P=0

18 ts undergoing bioprosthetic valve (35.21) or mechanical valve (35.22) AVR.

19 f which 411 pregnancies were in women with a mechanical valve and 202 were in women with a biological

20 of patients, the choice of PHV is between a mechanical valve and a stented bioprosthesis.

21 lation was maintained in all patients with a mechanical valve and in 18 patients (12%) with a biopros

22 o investigate how these valves function as a mechanical valve and source of vasoactive species to opt

23 er clarifies flow dynamics through bileaflet mechanical valves and provides previously unavailable re

24 Mechanical valves and stented tissue valves allow "off t

25 ostheses, merging the superior durability of mechanical valves and the enhanced haemodynamic function

26 associated with lifelong anticoagulation of mechanical valves and the limited durability of bioprost

27 n is problematic because of complications of mechanical valves and uncertain outcomes associated with

28 By multivariate analysis, technical failure, mechanical valve, and hemolytic anemia were independentl

29 ation therapy and its complications with the mechanical valve, and structural valve deterioration wit

30 limited by the use of discrete channels and mechanical valves, and relies on fixed geometries.

31 etic manipulation, vesicle encapsulation and mechanical valve approaches.

32 Bileaflet mechanical valves are a valuable option for patients und

33 l anticoagulation intensity in patients with mechanical valves are needed, and that future guidelines

34 ific subgroups in which bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves are preferable.

35 =65 to 70 years of age; in younger patients mechanical valves are the PHV of choice.

36 In contrast to a mechanical valve-based system, a flow-controlled system

37 This has led to the development of mechanical valves, bioprosthetic valves, homografts, ste

38 sion (78%) or replacement with a biologic or mechanical valved conduit (22%).

39 of valve replacement have been time tested: mechanical valves, cryopreserved aortic homograft, stent

40 Mechanical valve dysfunction can be caused by 4 main phe

41 ed dissolvable delay and a horizontal motion mechanical valve for use as an automatic multistep assay

42 Patients who received mechanical valves had a higher cumulative incidence of b

43 patients, xenografts in 103 patients, and a mechanical valve in 1 patient.

44 ves were implanted in 969 patients (88%) and mechanical valves in 131 (12%) patients.

45 In patients <70 years, either mechanical valves in both positions or a tissue AV and m

46 ined by atrial fibrillation (AF) or inserted mechanical valves in IE patients.

47 tic valve replacement using bioprosthetic vs mechanical valves in New York State from 1997 through 20

48 nt, freedom from all-cause mortality favored mechanical valves in patients aged 60 years and younger.

49 controlling flows of carrier gas instead of mechanical valves in the analytical flow path.

50 oward bioprosthesis implantation rather than mechanical valves, it is expected that patients will inc

51 Transcatheter manipulation of stuck mechanical valve leaflet is another treatment option for

52 owing the use of bioprostheses suggests that mechanical valves may be underused in the elderly.

53 For the end stage valve failure, bi-leaflet mechanical valve (most popular artificial valve) is impl

54 of anticoagulant-related complications with mechanical valves must be weighed against the risks of s

55 , 36.7%), on bioprosthesis (n = 111, 61.7%), mechanical valve (n = 67, 37.2%), or both (n = 2).

56 ant-related hemorrhage for bioprosthetic and mechanical valve patients were similar.

57 Compared with those receiving a mechanical valve, patients given a bioprosthesis had a s

58 rgical AVR (two with biological and two with mechanical valve prosthesis) with available post-treatme

59 d with recurrence included the presence of a mechanical valve, prothrombotic condition, and an acute

60 Bileaflet mechanical valves provide excellent long-term durability

61 e localized dissolvable delay and the robust mechanical valve, provides the potential to automaticall

62 anticoagulation intensity for patients with mechanical valves remains uncertain; current recommendat

63 Managing severe valvular heart disease with mechanical valve replacement necessitates lifelong antic

64 al fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and mechanical valve replacement.

65 scular events (22% versus 15%; P=0.0003) and mechanical valve replacements (9.6% versus 2.4%; P<0.000

66 trends indicating a decreasing proportion of mechanical valve replacements.

67 The mechanical valve's favorable properties of durability an

68 In this cohort study of mechanical valve surgical aortic replacement outcomes in

69 undergoing AVR had a better survival with a mechanical valve than with a bioprosthetic valve, largel

70 In women with a mechanical valve, the use of LMWH was associated with an

71 replacement with bioprosthetic compared with mechanical valves, there was no significant difference i

72 Mechanical valve thrombosis (MVT) is a known complicatio

73 Mechanical valve thrombosis complicated pregnancy in 10

74 ists are the most efficacious for preventing mechanical valve thrombosis, but they pose risks to the

75 al embolic protection for obstructive mitral mechanical valve thrombus.

76 ble evidence-based treatment for obstructive mechanical valve thrombus.

77 t flow stream as it passed through bileaflet mechanical valves under steady and pulsatile conditions.

78 A mechanical valve using a horizontal movement was develop

79 cause mortality after AVR was lower with the mechanical valve versus bioprosthesis (66% vs. 79%, p =

80 pregnancy with a live birth in women with a mechanical valve was 54%, compared with 79% in women wit

81 rimary valve failure in bioprosthesis versus mechanical valve was 9 +/- 6% versus 0%, p = 0.16.

82 Age group-specific analyses showed that mechanical valves were associated with lower all-cause m

83 Mechanical valves were used exclusively during the first

84 K antagonists are preferred in patients with mechanical valves, while novel oral anticoagulants are f

85 Transcatheter release of the stuck mitral mechanical valve with cerebral embolic protection is an