ライフサイエンスコーパス: bioprosthetic valve

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

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

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

4 of developing SVD among patients with aortic bioprosthetic valves.

5 e vast majority of patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves.

6 are undergoing aortic valve replacement with bioprosthetic valves.

7 es and the enhanced haemodynamic function of bioprosthetic valves.

8 stricted to slightly modified mechanical and bioprosthetic valves.

9 All four patients had bioprosthetic valves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

16 Bioprosthetic valves are a good replacement alternative

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

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

19 Bioprosthetic valves are recommended for patients aged >

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

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

22 Bioprosthetic valve (BPV) thrombosis is considered a rel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

34 Compared with bioprosthetic valves, freedom from structural valve dete

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

52 Bioprosthetic valve thrombosis (BPVT) is considered unco

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

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

55 Bioprosthetic valve use has increased significantly.

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

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

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

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

60 Bioprosthetic valves were implanted in 969 patients (88%

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

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