ライフサイエンスコーパス: aortic valve

1 re analyzed to determine the location of the aortic valve.

2 itial cells and is downregulated in stenotic aortic valves.

3 timing of the observed artifacts with native aortic valves.

4 ending aorta samples from other 10 tricuspid aortic valve, 10 BAVnon-dil, and 10 BAVdil patients.

5 High-intensity aortic valve (18)F-fluoride uptake was observed in all p

6 ase involving premature calcification of the aortic valve, a phenotype that closely mimics human dise

7 ents with dilated aortic root and trileaflet aortic valve, a ratio of aortic root area to height prov

8 asia, whereas Pcdha9 increases penetrance of aortic valve abnormalities, both signature HLHS defects.

9 clinical leaflet thrombosis of bioprosthetic aortic valves after transcatheter valve replacement (TAV

10 Patients with bicuspid aortic valves also showed significantly increased TKE me

11 ed for the twin pair that had discordance of aortic valve and aortic aneurysm.

12 was also associated with increased rates of aortic valve and aortic surgery.

13 tration significantly decreased in tricuspid aortic valve and BAVnon-dil patients versus healthy subj

14 In patients with bicuspid aortic valve and dilated proximal ascending aorta, we so

15 igh mortality (26%-58%) and proximity to the aortic valve and great vessels (with potential for disse

16 In this series of patients with tricuspid aortic valve and similar AS severity, women have less va

17 igher energy losses associated with bicuspid aortic valves and dilated ascending aortic geometries th

18 aortic dissection in patients with bicuspid aortic valves and severe aortic enlargement: the "2010 A

19 let thrombosis in surgical and transcatheter aortic valves and the effect of novel oral anticoagulant

20 promoter region was observed in mineralized aortic valves and was inversely associated with H19 expr

21 logic prostheses increased substantially for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement, from 11.5% to

22 e ideal candidates for reimplantation of the aortic valve, and the long-term results have been excell

23 DRP1 protein was observed in calcified human aortic valves, and DRP1 RNA interference reduced primary

24 st cases, significant injuries to the aorta, aortic valve annulus, and left ventricle require open su

25 for major complications involving the aorta, aortic valve annulus, and left ventricle.

26 next-generation self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve are lacking.

27 AND A total of 1140 patients with severe AS (aortic valve area </=1 cm(2), Vmax >/=4 m/s) and preserv

28 Severe PAS was defined as aortic valve area <0.8 cm(2), mean aortic valve gradient

29 ts with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (aortic valve area <1 cm(2), peak jet velocity >3.5 m/s)

30 enosis (AS) most often presents with reduced aortic valve area (<1 cm(2)), normal stroke volume index

31 , mean gradient (41+/-18 mm Hg), and indexed aortic valve area (0.41+/-0.12 cm(2)/m(2)) were similar

32 in patients who cognitively improved (median aortic valve area 0.60 cm(2)) as compared with patients

33 ed with patients who did not improve (median aortic valve area 0.70 cm(2); P=0.01).

34 ghty-seven consecutive patients with reduced aortic valve area and normal stroke volume index undergo

35 Moderate AS was defined as aortic valve area between 1.0 and 1.5 cm(2) and LV systo

36 Aortic valve area increased to >/=1.0 cm(2) in 6 LF (24%

37 ymptom burden but less severe AS measured by aortic valve area index (0.50+/-0.09 versus 0.40+/-0.08

38 The preinterventional aortic valve area was lower in patients who cognitively

39 tients with moderate-severe asymptomatic AS (aortic valve area, 0.5+/-0.1 cm(2)/m(2); peak gradient,

40 TAVR resulted in larger aortic-valve areas than did surgery and also resulted in

41 resulted in lower mean gradients and larger aortic-valve areas than surgery.

42 terval between the end of the T wave and the aortic valve artifact was 19+/-37 ms.

43 The duration of the aortic valve artifact was 39+/-8 ms with amplitude of 0.

44 Aortic valve artifact was observed while mapping within

45 es with invasive hemodynamics and mechanical aortic valve artifacts.

46 ventricular ejection fraction, mean resting aortic valve (AV) gradient, indexed AV area, METs, and h

47 Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) disease is frequently accompanied by

48 Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is a heritable congenital heart defec

49 known about the association between bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) morphologic findings and the degree o

50 is large multicenter, international bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) registry aimed to define the sex diff

51 RATIONALE: The pathogenesis of bicuspid aortic valve (BAV)-associated aortopathy is poorly under

52 (Registry of Aortic Valve Bioprostheses Established by Catheter [FRAN

53 eported with both transcatheter and surgical aortic valve bioprostheses.

54 Median aortic valve calcification (1973 [1124-3490] Agatston un

55 Aortic valve calcification density correlated better wit

56 After adjustment for age, body mass index, aortic valve calcification density, and aortic annulus d

57 However, women present lower aortic valve calcification loads than men for the same A

58 emature ventricular contraction ablation, an aortic valve closure artifact is observed in up to one t

59 ted (18)F-fluoride PET/CT and PET/MRI of the aortic valve could improve PET quantitation and image qu

60 h CNP/NPR2 signaling as a novel regulator of aortic valve development and disease and elucidate the t

61 Mean aortic valve diameter z score was lower in fetuses with

62 Calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD) is the most common cause of

63 An insufficient understanding of calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD) pathogenesis remains a major

64 In calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD), activated T lymphocytes loc

65 rd/Senning (n=2), tetralogy of Fallot (n=2), aortic valve disease (n=2), and other biventricular surg

66 RATIONALE: Aortic valve disease is a cell-mediated process without

67 ation in the promoter of H19 during calcific aortic valve disease is associated with a higher express

68 ses (vs. mechanical prostheses) for treating aortic valve disease, and this tendency is likely to con

69 is in mice causes accelerated progression of aortic valve disease.

70 utic candidates targeting the progression of aortic valve disease.

71 regurgitation, and in patients with bicuspid aortic valve disease.

72 in the context of both moderate and advanced aortic valve disease.

73 chanical haemodynamic consequences of severe aortic valve diseases (with preserved LV ejection fracti

74 KEY POINTS: Severe aortic valve diseases are common cardiac abnormalities t

75 nto the haemodynamic cardiac consequences of aortic valve diseases in those with preserved LV ejectio

76 d as the distance between the carina and the aortic valve, divided by the thoracic width, was found t

77 he risk of significant (moderate and severe) aortic valve dysfunction and aortic dilation and/or diss

78 When presenting with moderate/severe aortic valve dysfunction, men had more frequent aortic r

79 n high-risk patients, TAVR for bioprosthetic aortic valve failure is associated with relatively low m

80 We, thus, aimed to assess sex differences in aortic valve fibrocalcific remodeling.

81 Aortic valve function was divided into normal, regurgita

82 Aortic valve function was significantly impaired in Npr2

83 ongenital bicuspid aortic valves, with worse aortic valve function, fibrosis, and calcification than

84 sue analysis which showed a similar level of aortic valve gelatinase activity, and inflammation betwe

85 efined as aortic valve area <0.8 cm(2), mean aortic valve gradient >/=40 mm Hg, and dimensionless ind

86 ynamics were better with TAVR patients (mean aortic valve gradient 7.62 +/- 3.57 mm Hg vs. 11.40 +/-

87 The mean aortic valve gradient was 8.5 +/- 5.6 mm Hg, and moderat

88 357), TAVR patients (N=390) had a lower mean aortic valve gradient, larger valve area, and less patie

89 ients of more than 20 mm Hg and increases in aortic valve gradients of more than 10 mm Hg (12 [14%] o

90 ents with subclinical leaflet thrombosis had aortic valve gradients of more than 20 mm Hg and increas

91 c Surgeons score, LV ejection fraction, mean aortic valve gradients, and right ventricular systolic p

92 increases systolic ejection time and reduces aortic valve gradients, global afterload, and myocardial

93 n, lung disease, home oxygen use, lower mean aortic valve gradients, prior stroke, diabetes, pacemake

94 (TAVR) within failed bioprosthetic surgical aortic valves has shown that valve-in-valve (VIV) TAVR i

95 t is unknown whether CNP signaling regulates aortic valve health in vivo.

96 At 3 years aortic valve hemodynamics were better with TAVR patients

97 nsition, and NOTCH1 mutations cause bicuspid aortic valve; however, the temporal requirement for the

98 Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has evolved to a treatm

99 The proven efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in high-risk patients i

100 those, 1947 patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the SAPIEN 3 (mean

101 al aortic valve replacement or transcatheter aortic valve implantation is the sole effective therapy

102 enrolled patients in the Swiss Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation registry.

103 ded in the FRANCE TAVI (French Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry.

104 Osteogenic activity in the aortic valve is under the control of NOTCH1, which regul

105 ication activity to different regions of the aortic valve leaflet and commonly to areas of increased

106 Mechanical artifacts from aortic valve leaflet motion may be observed during mappi

107 a ratio-based tool for determination of the aortic valve location on plain supine chest radiograph i

108 We developed a ratio to determine the aortic valve location on supine chest radiograph images.

109 The aortic valve location ratio, defined as the distance bet

110 versus epicardial or above versus below the aortic valve) may be considered (anatomic ablation).

111 ejection fraction, stroke volume index, and aortic valve mean gradient up to 3 years, with no associ

112 post-TAVR, with a decrease of -2.9 mm Hg in aortic valve mean gradient, an increase of 0.028 in Dopp

113 valve structural indications, measured using aortic valve mean gradient, effective orifice area, Dopp

114 ombosis occurred frequently in bioprosthetic aortic valves, more commonly in transcatheter than in su

115 that M2FA is present in plaque found on the aortic valve of ApoE (-/-) mice.

116 than those Npr2(+/-) with typical tricuspid aortic valves or all wild-type littermate controls.

117 In patients undergoing aortic-valve or mitral-valve replacement, either a mecha

118 ricular septal defect (P=0.12), and bicuspid aortic valve (P=0.14) did not carry an increased risk fo

119 HODS AND We studied 969 consecutive bicuspid aortic valve patients (50+/-13 years; 87% men) with prox

120 In bicuspid aortic valve patients with dilated proximal ascending ao

121 Furthermore, metoprolol reduced aortic valve peak -7 mm Hg (-13, 0; P=0.05) and mean -4

122 eglects the velocity distribution across the aortic valve plane.

123 tate free precession sequences were used for aortic valve planimetry and to assess ventricular volume

124 Given the expansion of transcatheter aortic valve procedures, including potentially lower-ris

125 terior chest radiographs of patients with an aortic valve prosthesis (n = 473) were analyzed to deter

126 nsequences of aortic valve stenosis (AS) and aortic valve regurgitation (AR).

127 d incidence of strokes, re-intervention, and aortic valve regurgitation at 1 year after implantation.

128 underwent aortic valve surgery, with severe aortic valve regurgitation being the surgical indication

129 One patient with mild to moderate aortic valve regurgitation underwent aortic valve repair

130 Although freedom from aortic valve reintervention is superior after the Ross p

131 were no differences in the rates of stroke, aortic valve reintervention, or myocardial infarction at

132 oderate aortic valve regurgitation underwent aortic valve repair for obstruction of the left coronary

133 urgical aortic root enlargement (ARE) during aortic valve replacement (AVR) allows for larger prosthe

134 The benefit of aortic valve replacement (AVR) among NFLG patients is co

135 Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is only formally indicate

136 of patients undergoing primary bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR), reoperation to relieve s

137 There are several options available for aortic valve replacement (AVR), with few comparative rep

138 redictor of mortality in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR).

139 s procedure and those receiving a mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR).

140 recorded as having undergone a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (n = 3223), an endovascular ane

141 ied 682 unique hospitals performing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and MV replacement and r

142 -expanding prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe

143 theter valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has been found with CT i

144 aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) procedure; however, its

145 aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) results in similar 2-yea

146 ty and effectiveness of TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), particularly in interme

147 Stroke is a major complication of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

148 ingful evidence of its benefit over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

149 of the risks of TAVR compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

150 sociated with poorer outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

151 Aortic valve replacement (surgical or catheter based) wa

152 A percutaneous approach with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and percutaneous coronar

153 e aortic stenosis undergoing a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and the effect of TAVR o

154 a on 30-day readmissions after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are limited.

155 PAD in a population undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are unknown.

156 With the approval of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for patients with severe

157 Use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for severe aortic stenos

158 ized trials support the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of aor

159 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a safe and ef

160 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a well-accept

161 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been introduced into

162 In clinical trials, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to improv

163 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized manag

164 ata evaluating the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in diabetic patients are

165 t about safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with pure na

166 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a transformational an

167 The risk for stroke after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an important concern.

168 Importance: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now a well-accepted a

169 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is standard therapy for

170 The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) led to renewed interest

171 Valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be less effective in

172 urological complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be reduced with tran

173 surgical risk, treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve

174 or functional recovery after a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve

175 of patients who underwent redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures >2 weeks post

176 Patient selection for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) should include assessmen

177 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was approved by the US F

178 device performance outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a next-generation,

179 increased mortality following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with first and second ge

180 scious sedation is used during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with limited evidence as

181 Early experience with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) within failed bioprosthe

182 may enable fully percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) without the hazards and

183 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), because of its less-inv

184 agement in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

185 ions in exercise capacity post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

186 dverse clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

187 outcome in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

188 endocarditis after undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

189 lve (THV) thrombosis following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

190 a frequent complication after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

191 (Cerebral Protection in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement [SENTINEL]; NCT02214277).

192 y 1.9 million patients eligible for surgical aortic valve replacement and 1.0 million patients eligib

193 In small subgroups, such as aortic valve replacement and aortic valve replacement+co

194 ies are a common finding after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and often result in permanent p

195 urgery, under anticoagulation after a recent aortic valve replacement and without a medical history o

196 evolution, support the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement as the preferred therapy in HR

197 42 189 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement between the years 2011 and 2014

198 The 54,782 patients with transcatheter aortic valve replacement demonstrated decreases in expec

199 eatment distribution including transcatheter aortic valve replacement eligibility in low-risk patient

200 eValve, Evolut R, and SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve replacement enrolled in the RESOLVE study (

201 Furthermore, aortic valve replacement event rates were significantly

202 pair, the twin with a BAV underwent surgical aortic valve replacement for clinical indications.

203 ely analyzed 78 patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis betw

204 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has become the procedure of cho

205 The rapid growth of transcatheter aortic valve replacement has been fuelled by improved te

206 In recent years, use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement has expanded to include patient

207 er 25% patients presenting for transcatheter aortic valve replacement having chronic kidney disease (

208 which could postpone or prevent the need for aortic valve replacement in patients with asymptomatic A

209 hy for vascular mapping before transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with renal impairme

210 Surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with small annular

211 (Transcaval Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in People With No Good Options

212 onsecutive patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in Switzerland between February

213 d discharge ECGs who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the Placement of AoRTic TraN

214 persistence of severe PH after transcatheter aortic valve replacement is a stronger predictor of 1-ye

215 The experience with transcatheter aortic valve replacement is increasing worldwide; howeve

216 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement might be a good alternative; ho

217 Surgical aortic valve replacement or transcatheter aortic valve i

218 However, the transcatheter aortic valve replacement patient presents a unique chall

219 THV technology, variability in transcatheter aortic valve replacement practice, end points included a

220 tality [PROM]) of 7% to 6% and transcatheter aortic valve replacement PROM (TVT PROM) of 4% to 3% (bo

221 l events rates associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement raised concerns that ultimately

222 Current guidelines consider aortic valve replacement reasonable in asymptomatic pati

223 demic Research Consortium) for transcatheter aortic valve replacement set the standard for selecting

224 Although transcatheter aortic valve replacement thrombosis is a multifactorial

225 The median time from aortic valve replacement to CT for the entire cohort was

226 ive implanted to a theoretical transcatheter aortic valve replacement valve size resulted in GOAs 25%

227 size and (2) to a theoretical transcatheter aortic valve replacement valve size.

228 Implanted surgical aortic valve replacement valves were smaller relative to

229 entricular function in an era where surgical aortic valve replacement was the sole therapy.

230 New generation devices for transfemoral aortic valve replacement were optimized on valve positio

231 studies comparing transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement with a subset undergoing survei

232 lus area <400 mm(2) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with either a self-expanding tr

233 s restricted to patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement with or without root enlargemen

234 with low clinical event rates, transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the ACURATE neo valve resu

235 Transfemoral aortic valve replacement with the ES3 and the Lotus were

236 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the SAPIEN 3 valve.

237 rventions for aortic stenosis (transcatheter aortic valve replacement) may alter the risk-benefit rat

238 groups, such as aortic valve replacement and aortic valve replacement+coronary artery bypass grafting

239 2 (82-112) seconds compared to dysfunctional aortic valve replacement, 139 (122-177) seconds, P < .00

240 th renal impairment undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, FE MR angiography is technical

241 After aortic valve replacement, left ventricular afterload is

242 nalyzer closure times were lower with normal aortic valve replacement, mean (range) 92 (82-112) secon

243 eurysm repair, coronary artery bypass graft, aortic valve replacement, mitral valve repair) using an

244 non-US cohort of patients with transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the validation of the TVT regi

245 atients who may have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement, we conducted a subgroup analys

246 low-risk patients eligible for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

247 rger if patients had undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

248 lion (95% CI, 1.3-2.6) eligible for surgical aortic valve replacement.

249 jection fraction recovery post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

250 o identify patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

251 Appropriate valve sizing is critical in aortic valve replacement.

252 million patients eligible for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

253 hocardiographic outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

254 rtality in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

255 rdiography to determine the optimum time for aortic valve replacement.

256 re aortic stenosis considering transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

257 ively affect the outcome after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

258 r computed tomography within 3 months before aortic valve replacement.

259 rliest time after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

260 thy patients with aortic stenosis undergoing aortic valve replacement.

261 oor, and current guidelines recommend prompt aortic valve replacement.

262 tcome in patients eligible for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

263 r computed tomography within 3 months before aortic valve replacement.

264 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

265 potential for guiding the optimal timing of aortic valve replacement.

266 gh Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902).

267 gh Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902).

268 urvival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valv

269 Although transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is an accepted alternati

270 l-valve replacement, from 11.5% to 51.6% for aortic-valve replacement and from 16.8% to 53.7% for mit

271 ed cohorts of patients who underwent primary aortic-valve replacement or mitral-valve replacement wit

272 Among patients who underwent aortic-valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthes

273 until 55 years of age among those undergoing aortic-valve replacement.

274 f a self-expanding prosthesis) with surgical aortic-valve replacement.

275 aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valve replacement.

276 t 24 months in patients undergoing attempted aortic-valve replacement.

277 nto the haemodynamic cardiac consequences of aortic valve stenosis (AS) and aortic valve regurgitatio

278 treatment can modify the natural history of aortic valve stenosis (AS).

279 to cardiovascular disease (CVD) and calcific aortic valve stenosis (CAVS) is substantial.

280 w-up measurements were performed in HOCM and aortic valve stenosis patients 4 months after surgery.

281 in FFR values was found before and after the aortic valve stenosis removal (0.89+/-0.10 versus 0.89+/

282 Coronary hemodynamics are influenced by aortic valve stenosis removal.

283 idney transplant recipients (KT) with severe aortic valve stenosis underwent transfemoral TAVI.

284 tive cardiomyopathy (HOCM), 10 patients with aortic valve stenosis, and 14 healthy individuals using

285 In contrast to patients with aortic valve stenosis, MEE was not improved in patients

286 Death or reintervention for aortic valve structural indications, measured using aort

287 of aortopathy, and complications, including aortic valve surgery, aortic dissection, and all-cause m

288 ortopathy, and prognosis (including need for aortic valve surgery, aortic dissection, and all-cause m

289 p of 4.8 +/- 5.6 years, 8 patients underwent aortic valve surgery, with severe aortic valve regurgita

290 Marfan syndrome and lower rates of bicuspid aortic valve than those undergoing bio-CVG or m-CVG proc

291 progression in Npr2(+/-) mice with bicuspid aortic valves than those with tricuspid valves.

292 Aortic valves that were surgically excised for clinical

293 le to estimate the peak pressure drop at the aortic valve using 3-dimensional cardiovascular magnetic

294 Bicuspid aortic valve was associated with more intense helical (P

295 Bicuspid aortic valve was diagnosed in 227 patients (73.2%), and

296 ated proximal ascending aorta and trileaflet aortic valve, we aimed to assess (1) factors independent

297 Explanted stenotic tricuspid aortic valves were weighed, and fibrosis degree was dete

298 Additionally, 4 patients with mechanical aortic valves, who underwent scar-related ventricular ta

299 Bicuspid aortic valves with raphe had a significantly higher prev

300 eterozygous for Npr2 had congenital bicuspid aortic valves, with worse aortic valve function, fibrosi