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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24 Bioprosthetic failure was secondary to stenosis in 6 (26

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

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

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

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

29 cular diseases including atherosclerosis and bioprosthetic heart valve mineralization.

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

31 Porcine bioprosthetic heart valves and native human heart valves

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

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

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

35 alcification resistance when used to prepare bioprosthetic heart valves.

36 Patient data refer to bioprosthetic implantations performed from November 1988

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

49 different mechanical PHV and among different bioprosthetic PHV.

50 Current prosthetic or bioprosthetic replacement devices are imperfect and subj

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

52 ve demonstrated the effectiveness of a novel bioprosthetic scaffold.

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

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

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

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

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

58 Bioprosthetic tissue valves are the valves of choice in

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

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

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

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

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

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

65 Bioprosthetic valve (BPV) thrombosis is considered a rel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

81 Bioprosthetic valve thrombosis (BPVT) is considered unco

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

83 Bioprosthetic valve use has increased significantly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

102 Bioprosthetic valves are a good replacement alternative

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

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

105 Bioprosthetic valves are recommended for patients aged >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

115 Bioprosthetic valves were implanted in 969 patients (88%

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

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

118 Compared with bioprosthetic valves, freedom from structural valve dete

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

120 of developing SVD among patients with aortic bioprosthetic valves.

121 e vast majority of patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves.

122 are undergoing aortic valve replacement with bioprosthetic valves.

123 es and the enhanced haemodynamic function of bioprosthetic valves.

124 stricted to slightly modified mechanical and bioprosthetic valves.

125 All four patients had bioprosthetic valves.

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

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

128 Bioprosthetic vs mechanical prosthetic mitral valve repl

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