ライフサイエンスコーパス: mechanical valve

1 ere randomized to receive a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve.

2 ng occurred more frequently in patients with mechanical valve.

3 ficantly different between bioprosthesis and mechanical valve.

4 mary valve failure was virtually absent with mechanical valve.

5 stheses, but bleeding was more common with a mechanical valve.

6 from reoperation and survival compared with mechanical valves.

7 in patients with bioprosthetic compared with mechanical valves.

8 for those who received bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves.

9 ation is significantly better with bileaflet mechanical valves.

10 low controlled by rotation speed without any mechanical valves.

11 unction (1C), endocarditis in native (2C) or mechanical valves (1B), great vessel disease and injury

12 mplantation was associated with the use of a mechanical valve (23% versus 6% bioprosthetic valve; P=0

13 ts undergoing bioprosthetic valve (35.21) or mechanical valve (35.22) AVR.

14 of patients, the choice of PHV is between a mechanical valve and a stented bioprosthesis.

15 lation was maintained in all patients with a mechanical valve and in 18 patients (12%) with a biopros

16 er clarifies flow dynamics through bileaflet mechanical valves and provides previously unavailable re

17 Mechanical valves and stented tissue valves allow "off t

18 ostheses, merging the superior durability of mechanical valves and the enhanced haemodynamic function

19 associated with lifelong anticoagulation of mechanical valves and the limited durability of bioprost

20 n is problematic because of complications of mechanical valves and uncertain outcomes associated with

21 ation therapy and its complications with the mechanical valve, and structural valve deterioration wit

22 etic manipulation, vesicle encapsulation and mechanical valve approaches.

23 Bileaflet mechanical valves are a valuable option for patients und

24 ific subgroups in which bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves are preferable.

25 =65 to 70 years of age; in younger patients mechanical valves are the PHV of choice.

26 In contrast to a mechanical valve-based system, a flow-controlled system

27 sion (78%) or replacement with a biologic or mechanical valved conduit (22%).

28 of valve replacement have been time tested: mechanical valves, cryopreserved aortic homograft, stent

29 Patients who received mechanical valves had a higher cumulative incidence of b

30 patients, xenografts in 103 patients, and a mechanical valve in 1 patient.

31 ves were implanted in 969 patients (88%) and mechanical valves in 131 (12%) patients.

32 In patients <70 years, either mechanical valves in both positions or a tissue AV and m

33 tic valve replacement using bioprosthetic vs mechanical valves in New York State from 1997 through 20

34 controlling flows of carrier gas instead of mechanical valves in the analytical flow path.

35 oward bioprosthesis implantation rather than mechanical valves, it is expected that patients will inc

36 owing the use of bioprostheses suggests that mechanical valves may be underused in the elderly.

37 of anticoagulant-related complications with mechanical valves must be weighed against the risks of s

38 ant-related hemorrhage for bioprosthetic and mechanical valve patients were similar.

39 Compared with those receiving a mechanical valve, patients given a bioprosthesis had a s

40 d with recurrence included the presence of a mechanical valve, prothrombotic condition, and an acute

41 Bileaflet mechanical valves provide excellent long-term durability

42 al fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and mechanical valve replacement.

43 scular events (22% versus 15%; P=0.0003) and mechanical valve replacements (9.6% versus 2.4%; P<0.000

44 The mechanical valve's favorable properties of durability an

45 undergoing AVR had a better survival with a mechanical valve than with a bioprosthetic valve, largel

46 replacement with bioprosthetic compared with mechanical valves, there was no significant difference i

47 Mechanical valve thrombosis complicated pregnancy in 10

48 ists are the most efficacious for preventing mechanical valve thrombosis, but they pose risks to the

49 t flow stream as it passed through bileaflet mechanical valves under steady and pulsatile conditions.

50 cause mortality after AVR was lower with the mechanical valve versus bioprosthesis (66% vs. 79%, p =

51 rimary valve failure in bioprosthesis versus mechanical valve was 9 +/- 6% versus 0%, p = 0.16.

52 Mechanical valves were used exclusively during the first