ライフサイエンスコーパス: mitral valve replacement

1 e, ranging from 9.9% (nephrectomy) to 22.2% (mitral valve replacement).

2 tract obstruction required elective surgical mitral valve replacement.

3 tly, most of these patients are referred for mitral valve replacement.

4 red to the standard operation for aortic and mitral valve replacement.

5 od for treating severe mitral regurgitation--mitral valve replacement.

6 r aortic valve replacement and transcatheter mitral valve replacement.

7 outflow tract obstruction with transcatheter mitral valve replacement.

8 uccessfully used to facilitate transcatheter mitral valve replacement.

9 ypertrophic cardiomyopathy and transcatheter mitral valve replacement.

10 ctive mitral valve annuloplasty alone and to mitral valve replacement.

11 outflow tract obstruction with transcatheter mitral valve replacement.

12 oup at high or extreme risk for conventional mitral valve replacement.

13 r was 4.8% (2.1-9.0) and 6.8% (2.9-10.1) for mitral valve replacement.

14 re both independently associated with repeat mitral valve replacement.

15 ally in the forthcoming era of transcatheter mitral valve replacement.

16 rwent mechanical prosthetic vs bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement.

17 Bioprosthetic vs mechanical prosthetic mitral valve replacement.

18 tnatal intervention; 42% underwent aortic or mitral valve replacement.

19 pass grafting, aortic valve replacement, and mitral valve replacement.

20 te the anterior leaflet before transcatheter mitral valve replacement.

21 d to either total or partial chordal-sparing mitral valve replacement.

22 alve replacement and from 16.8% to 53.7% for mitral-valve replacement.

23 mitral-valve repair and those who underwent mitral-valve replacement.

24 aortic valve replacement (0.73 versus 0.76), mitral valve replacement (0.73 versus 0.74), and abdomin

25 valve replacement) (228, 5.9%), CABG + MVR (mitral valve replacement) (35, 0.9%), AVR (231, 6%), MVR

26 eat percutaneous mitral balloon valvotomy or mitral valve replacement (78 +/- 6% vs. 67 +/- 8%, p = 0

27 eat percutaneous mitral balloon valvotomy or mitral valve replacement (86 +/- 4% vs. 40 +/- 4%) and f

28 outflow tract obstruction with transcatheter mitral valve replacement a range between 69 and 154 days

29 For transcatheter mitral valve replacement, a common contraindication is t

30 ower survival rate and a higher incidence of mitral valve replacement and all end points combined.

31 mitral valve repair is far more complex than mitral valve replacement and must be accompanied by care

32 replacement (TMVR) for patients with failed mitral valve replacement and repair.

33 Delaying definitive mechanical mitral valve replacement and the constraints of anticoag

34 il 70 years of age among patients undergoing mitral-valve replacement and until 55 years of age among

35 dverse clinical events (death, repeat PMC or mitral valve replacement) and functional status was asse

36 s, 75% had aortic valve replacement, 20% had mitral valve replacement, and 5% had both.

37 procedures (CABG, aortic valve replacement, mitral valve replacement, and elective abdominal aortic

38 mitral valve in 4 of 4 patients (100%) after mitral valve replacement, and in the subaortic region in

39 tral valve repair in 2; and septal myectomy, mitral valve replacement, aortoplasty, subaortic stenosi

40 h, and 3 patients required elective surgical mitral valve replacement at 6- to 54-month follow-up.

41 derwent isolated aortic valve replacement or mitral valve replacement at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical

42 at percutaneous mitral balloon valvotomy and mitral valve replacement at follow-up.

43 cement (CABG/AVR), and 18.2% after CABG with mitral valve replacement (CABG/MVR).

44 restrictive mitral annuloplasty +/- CABG and mitral valve replacement + CABG had rates of 4.4% and 5.

45 hen no surgical or trial-based transcatheter mitral valve replacement device is available.

46 In patients undergoing aortic-valve or mitral-valve replacement, either a mechanical or biologi

47 +/- 6.10 micrograms/mg tissue) and in sheep mitral valve replacements (ethanol-pretreated calcium le

48 f retaining the subvalvular apparatus during mitral valve replacement for chronic mitral regurgitatio

49 n of mitral valve reconstruction rather than mitral valve replacement for mitral insufficiency second

50 A three-yr-old girl was admitted after mitral valve replacement for persistent severe mitral in

51 increased substantially for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement, from 11.5% to 51.6% for aortic

52 but longer for other procedures (aortic and mitral valve replacement, gastrectomy).

53 and stentless "freehand" bileaflet xenograft mitral valve replacement has arisen.

54 Transcatheter mitral valve replacement has emerged as a viable alterna

55 Clinical and experimental studies of mitral valve replacement have shown a depression of vent

56 e repairs, risks and benefits (compared with mitral valve replacement) have become better defined.

57 ting in 95%, mitral valve repair in 22%, and mitral valve replacement in 1%.

58 ; mitral valve replacement in 18; prosthetic mitral valve replacement in 14; repair of prosthetic mit

59 cement was performed in 3415 patients (58%), mitral valve replacement in 1848 patients (32%), and com

60 included mitral valve repair in 27 patients; mitral valve replacement in 18; prosthetic mitral valve

61 ventricular outflow tract for transcatheter mitral valve replacement in 4 patients at risk for left

62 1848 patients (32%), and combined aortic and mitral valve replacement in 562 patients (10%).

63 valve replacement in 3 and valvectomy in 7, mitral valve replacement in 6 and repair in 1, aortic va

64 50-69 years) who underwent primary, isolated mitral valve replacement in New York State hospitals fro

65 mong patients aged 50 to 69 years undergoing mitral valve replacement in New York State, there was no

66 r aortic valve replacement and transcatheter mitral valve replacement in patients otherwise ineligibl

67 to evaluate the potential for transcatheter mitral valve replacement in patients with severe MAC usi

68 I) is emerging as an alternative to surgical mitral valve replacement in selected high-risk patients.

69 Transcatheter mitral valve replacement in severe mitral annular calcif

70 bstruction may occur following transcatheter mitral valve replacement in the setting of mitral annula

71 zed trial comparing mitral-valve repair with mitral-valve replacement in patients with severe ischemi

72 Advantages over mitral valve replacement include improved hemodynamic pe

73 erview of the current state of transcatheter mitral valve replacement, including patient selection, p

74 Transcatheter mitral valve replacement is a novel therapeutic approach

75 rrent status of allograft use for aortic and mitral valve replacement is reviewed.

76 Transcatheter mitral valve replacement is still in early development.

77 though these findings suggest bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement may be a reasonable alternative

78 Previous studies in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement may not be applicable in the pr

79 air and 60.6+/-39.0 ml per square meter with mitral-valve replacement (mean changes from baseline, -9

80 g isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) and from 43,463 patients

81 ing single aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) at 13 VA medical centers

82 essed using data from 21 patients undergoing mitral valve replacement (MVR) for chronic MR.

83 Mitral valve replacement (MVR) has a high mortality and

84 Chordal excision during mitral valve replacement (MVR) impairs left ventricular

85 d functional status after initial mechanical mitral valve replacement (MVR) in children <5 years of a

86 ort- and long-term outcomes after prosthetic mitral valve replacement (MVR) in children aged <5 years

87 surgical options for IMR and to discuss when mitral valve replacement (MVR) may be favored over mitra

88 tic valve replacement (AVR) and 482 isolated mitral valve replacement (MVR) operations with the St Ju

89 The overall prevalence of mitral valve replacement (MVR) or MV repair at the time

90 Early attempts at mitral valve replacement (MVR) with mitral valve allogra

91 Recent studies have suggested that mitral valve replacement (MVR) with sparing of the subva

92 lacement (AVR), 18.9% (n = 14,686) underwent mitral valve replacement (MVR), 10.5% (n = 8,219) underw

93 ), surgical mitral valvuloplasty (SMVP), and mitral valve replacement (MVR), although the optimal the

94 In younger patients requiring mitral valve replacement (MVR), mechanical prostheses (M

95 ) in such patients are few; the alternative, mitral valve replacement (MVR), necessitates commitment

96 Four late deaths occurred after elective mitral valve replacement (MVR).

97 ibrillation (AF) in patients with mechanical mitral valve replacement (MVR).

98 dity after aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR).

99 d with structural valve deterioration (SVD) (mitral valve replacement [MVR] > AVR) and, therefore, fo

100 ral valve replacement [MVRm], 216 biological mitral valve replacement [MVRb]), thromboembolic complic

101 p] and 447 valve replacement: 231 mechanical mitral valve replacement [MVRm], 216 biological mitral v

102 ty, consisting of cleft repair (n = 10), and mitral valve replacement (n = 2) were performed selectiv

103 cedures were high risk, with an STS PROM for mitral valve replacement of 11%.

104 mean+/-SD, 70+/-12), and none had associated mitral valve replacement or evidence of mitral stenosis:

105 Mitral valve replacement or repair may be complicated by

106 , 0.90 (0.86-0.93) compared to dysfunctional mitral valve replacement or repair, 0.78 (0.70-0.90), P

107 t, 0.78 (0.73-0.87), P < .001, as did normal mitral valve replacement or repair, 0.90 (0.86-0.93) com

108 85 (74-96) seconds compared to dysfunctional mitral valve replacement or repair, 143 (128-192) second

109 ement, 36 patients with normally functioning mitral valve replacement or repair, 19 patients with dys

110 , P < .001, and also in normally functioning mitral valve replacement or repair, 85 (74-96) seconds c

111 nt or repair, 19 patients with dysfunctional mitral valve replacement or repair, and 31 patients with

112 erative mortality in the patients undergoing mitral valve replacement or repair.

113 pass grafting, aortic valve replacement, and mitral valve replacement or repair.

114 e replacements and in 14 of 19 dysfunctional mitral valve replacements or repairs (P < .001 for both)

115 tic valve replacements and in 2 of 36 normal mitral valve replacements or repairs but were abnormal i

116 that was unassociated with mitral stenosis, mitral valve replacement, or a previous operation involv

117 and Kaplan-Meier estimates in two series of mitral valve replacement patients: thromboembolism in a

118 Supraannular mitral valve replacement provides relief of mitral steno

119 Among patients who underwent mitral-valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthes

120 ing patient outcomes comparing redo surgical mitral valve replacement (redo SMVR) vs transcatheter mi

121 bstantially, whereas the mortality rate from mitral valve replacement remained high, largely because

122 operation than do males and patients having mitral valve replacements, respectively.

123 etention of the subvalvular apparatus during mitral valve replacement resulted in improved ejection p

124 outflow tract obstruction with transcatheter mitral valve replacement resulted in septal end-diastoli

125 Results from the use of St Jude mitral valve replacement (SJMVR) were compared with thos

126 terial may extend the durability of surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR) to provide stable long-t

127 n) and without associated mitral stenosis or mitral valve replacement strongly suggest that an underl

128 compared to control valve implants in sheep mitral valve replacement studies.

129 ormance of a novel transseptal transcatheter mitral valve replacement system (Cephea Valve Technologi

130 sseptal delivery of the Cephea transcatheter mitral valve replacement system in an experimental model

131 ormance of the Twelve Intrepid Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement System in High Risk Patients wi

132 ON) is an effective adjunct to transcatheter mitral valve replacement that prevents left ventricular

133 of failure using allograft mitral valves for mitral valve replacement, the technical problems of papi

134 fe-threatening complication of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) and transcatheter aortic

135 lve replacement (redo SMVR) vs transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) for failed prostheses.

136 Limited data exist regarding transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) for patients with failed

137 Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) has emerged as a less in

138 More recently, transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) has emerged as a potenti

139 Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is a potential therapy f

140 Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is a rapidly evolving th

141 Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is an emerging therapeut

142 Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is feasible for selected

143 Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) may be an option for sel

144 novel percutaneous transseptal transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) system in patients unsui

145 of a percutaneous transseptal transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) system.

146 Use of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) using transcatheter aort

147 edge-to-edge repair (TEER) and transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) with an approved device

148 e are scarce data available on transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR), and these have been lim

149 f mortality and exclusion from transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR).

150 cardiac device development is transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR).

151 thrombotic treatment following transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR).

152 Mean time from mitral valve replacement to percutaneous PVL repair was

153 Transcatheter mitral valve replacement using aortic transcatheter hear

154 in, we examine the outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement using the AltaValve system, whi

155 geons predicted risk of 30-day mortality for mitral valve replacement was 6.6%.

156 PCr/ATP in those referred for mitral valve replacement was lower (n=8, 1.17+/-0.23) al

157 e implantation (eg, transcatheter aortic and mitral valve replacements) was further elucidated in lar

158 for elective isolated or combined aortic and mitral valve replacement were included.

159 , diabetes mellitus, and combined aortic and mitral valve replacement were the strongest predictors o

160 edure times (from traversal to transcatheter mitral valve replacement) were shorter, compared with th

161 wed immediately by transseptal transcatheter mitral valve replacement with a 29 mm SAPIEN 3 valve.

162 n-mitral annular calcification transcatheter mitral valve replacement with a balloon-expandable aorti

163 the SUMMIT-MAC clinical trial, transcatheter mitral valve replacement with Tendyne led to successful

164 nderwent primary aortic-valve replacement or mitral-valve replacement with a mechanical or biologic p

165 patients: those who had undergone aortic- or mitral-valve replacement within the past 7 days and thos