ライフサイエンスコーパス: bioprosthesis

1 gh-risk patients with failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis.

2 thesis than in those treated with a surgical bioprosthesis.

3 en suspected in the last models of Mitroflow bioprosthesis.

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

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

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

7 ndergone a TAVI with the Medtronic-CoreValve bioprosthesis.

8 is between a mechanical valve and a stented bioprosthesis.

9 e, and structural valve deterioration with a bioprosthesis.

10 sing a second-generation stented pericardial bioprosthesis.

11 theses compares with the traditional porcine bioprosthesis.

12 after replacement of the aortic valve with a bioprosthesis.

13 Reoperation was more common for AVR with bioprosthesis.

14 ment for aortic valves used as allografts or bioprosthesis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

38 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

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

40 echanical prosthesis group compared with the bioprosthesis group.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

71 65 years after AVR, primary valve failure in bioprosthesis versus mechanical valve was 9 +/- 6% versu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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