ライフサイエンスコーパス: aortic valve

1 Evolut R/PRO or Sapien 3 valves in bicuspid aortic valve.

2 magnetic resonance imaging sequences of the aortic valve.

3 imal diameter > 4.0 cm), and 10 had bicuspid aortic valves.

4 integrate transcriptomic data from 233 human aortic valves.

5 c analyses were performed in human tricuspid aortic valves.

6 erogenesis, is upregulated in human calcific aortic valves.

7 at the aortic side of leaflets of explanted aortic valves.

8 d progression of calcium volume score in the aortic valve (14% [95% CI, 5-24] versus 98% [95% CI, 77-

9 individuals with Marfan syndrome or bicuspid aortic valve, a family history of AD was associated with

10 3 and Evolut R/PRO implantation in bicuspid aortic valve anatomy; a higher rate of moderate-severe p

11 nohistochemistry analyses, and assessment of aortic valve and cardiac function were determined by ech

12 rlson score. EE more frequently involved the aortic valve and prosthesis (64.3% vs. 46.7%; p < 0.001;

13 , including prevalent hypertension, bicuspid aortic valve, and the Marfan syndrome.

14 modeling, functional class decline, and more aortic valve/aortic surgery.

15 s with medically-managed isolated severe AS (aortic valve area < 1 cm(2)) and preserved LVEF (>50%) w

16 atients (50.4% men; mean age, 77 years) with aortic valve area <1.3 cm(2) and analyzed the occurrence

17 -five patients with LG severe AS (defined by aortic valve area <=1 cm(2) or aortic valve area indexed

18 7+/-5.6 versus 11.6+/-5.0 mm Hg; P=0.12) and aortic valve area (1.72+/-0.37 versus 1.76+/-0.42 cm(2);

19 Aortic valve area (AVA) <=1.0 cm(2) is a defining charac

20 ports a shared genetic etiology with between aortic valve area and birth weight along with other card

21 cestry participants, we estimated functional aortic valve area by planimetry from prospectively obtai

22 produce an accurate and precise estimate of aortic valve area in patients with severe aortic stenosi

23 A genome-wide association study of aortic valve area in these UK Biobank participants showe

24 S (defined by aortic valve area <=1 cm(2) or aortic valve area indexed to body surface area <=0.6 cm(

25 ls without imaging demonstrated that smaller aortic valve area is predictive of increased risk for ao

26 Aortic valve area measurements were submitted to genome-

27 , indexed left ventricular ventricular mass, aortic valve area, and aortic valve replacement as a tim

28 We constructed a polygenic risk score for aortic valve area, which in a separate cohort of 311 728

29 sease, causes a progressive narrowing of the aortic valve as a consequence of thickening and calcific

30 Patients with bicuspid aortic valve (AV) stenosis were excluded from the pivota

31 a common form of heart disease involving the aortic valve (AV).

32 Patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) have a higher risk of developing aort

33 Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is a common congenital heart defect (

34 Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is the most prevalent congenital hear

35 eased use of TAVR for patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis despite the exclusion of bic

36 rations in patients with congenital bicuspid aortic valve (BAV).

37 FRANCE-TAVI nationwide registry (Registry of Aortic Valve Bioprostheses Established by Catheter) incl

38 There was no difference in aortic valve calcification and mitral annular calcificat

39 e progression of coronary artery calcium and aortic valve calcification in patients with end-stage ki

40 death) and evaluated the prognostic value of aortic valve calcium score and biomarkers.

41 Aortic valve calcium score was more prognostic in female

42 work formalizes a deep learning baseline for aortic valve classification and outlines a general strat

43 rence between the interval from QRS onset to aortic valve closure midline, as derived for continuous-

44 pericardium were compared to native porcine aortic valve cusps in a rat subcutaneous model for up to

45 ty of the framework to predict bioprosthetic aortic valve deformations.

46 ted tomography (CT) can detect bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration and predict valve dysfunction.

47 he deformation biomechanics of bioprosthetic aortic valves directly from simulations.

48 Calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD) is the most common form of v

49 athways constituting biomarkers for calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD), including extra-cellular ma

50 lve area is predictive of increased risk for aortic valve disease (odds ratio, 1.14; P=2.3x10(-6)).

51 ssions Database, we identified patients with aortic valve disease admitted 2012 to 2016 for SAVR, TAV

52 ltiple links between the polygenic score for aortic valve disease and key health-related comorbiditie

53 The number of patients treated for aortic valve disease in the United States is increasing

54 The prevalence of calcific aortic valve disease is increasing with aging of the pop

55 ndle branch block may also develop following aortic valve disease or cardiac procedures.

56 umber of admissions associated with treating aortic valve disease with SAVR, TAVR, or MT.

57 ons of HF (including ischemic heart disease, aortic valve disease, atrial fibrillation, congenital he

58 ation to investigate the genetic etiology of aortic valve disease, perform clinical prediction, and u

59 verload, commonly caused by hypertension and aortic valve disease, promotes remodelling of the myocar

60 Among 190 563 patients with aortic valve disease, the average aggregate 6-month inpa

61 valve (BAV) have a higher risk of developing aortic valve dysfunction and progressive proximal aorta

62 ly increased in patients with more than mild aortic valve dysfunction but was independent from BAV le

63 Homozygous knockout mice for Adamts19 show aortic valve dysfunction, recapitulating aspects of the

64 s and their impact on myocardial remodeling, aortic valve flow patterns, and clinical progression.

65 Aortic valve flow was quantified as well to test for int

66 Fatty acid content was assessed in aortic valves from 25 patients with AS using gas chromat

67 idomic consequences of rs174547 in tricuspid aortic valves from patients with AS.

68 We evaluated aortic diameters, aortic valve function, and aortic shape in Marfan syndro

69 Peak aortic valve gradient at follow-up was lower than post-p

70 Mean aortic valve gradient was not associated with clinical o

71 days and 1 year, had significantly increased aortic valve gradients at 1 year (17.8 +/- 2.2 mm Hg vs.

72 nificantly affect aortic valve hemodynamics (aortic valve gradients or area), and was associated with

73 months, patients in the TAVR group had lower aortic-valve gradients than those in the surgery group (

74 and reduced leaflet motion of bioprosthetic aortic valves have been documented by four-dimensional c

75 t, but these findings did not correlate with aortic valve hemodynamic status after aortic valve repla

76 Aortic valve hemodynamic status was not influenced by th

77 linical events, did not significantly affect aortic valve hemodynamics (aortic valve gradients or are

78 Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a valid

79 Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized its

80 Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the

81 Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) still presents complica

82 coronary stenoses treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) were included.

83 eight patients had successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

84 er Transfusion Requirements in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TRITAVI) registry retrospecti

85 d Ventricular Remodeling After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation [RASTAVI]; NCT03201185).

86 Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is increasingly being used in

87 ecutive patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation using new-generation Evolut R/

88 ral Versus Local Anesthesia in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial is a multicenter, open-

89 d Ventricular Remodeling After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial is an ongoing randomize

90 n the development of CSA after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

91 th an antiplatelet agent after transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) have not been well stud

92 nd thromboembolic events after transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) in patients who do not

93 Of 1,660 subjects with attempted aortic valve implants, 332 (20%) were assigned to revasc

94 rmalities (such as Marfan syndrome, bicuspid aortic valve, inflammatory vasculitis, atherosclerosis a

95 onal and phenotypic changes occurring in the aortic valve interstitial cells (VICs) during osteogenic

96 The Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION) was designed to compa

97 (Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention Trial; NCT01057173).

98 Patients with previous aortic valve intervention were excluded.

99 In the NOTION (Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention) trial, all-comer patients wit

100 re associated with 1-year mortality, whereas aortic valve involvement (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, .22-.98; P =

101 The aortic valve is an important determinant of cardiovascul

102 TAVR) for degenerated surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves is associated with favorable early outcome

103 tract time-velocity integral to that of the aortic valve jet-and mortality in these patients.

104 exhibited reduced valve calcification, lower aortic valve leaflet area, increased M2 macrophage polar

105 Aortic valve leaflet fusion pattern and sex were not ass

106 uence of thickening and calcification of the aortic valve leaflets.

107 resence of HALT did not significantly affect aortic valve mean gradients at 30 days or 1 year.

108 histology, and morphometric analyses during aortic valve morphogenesis and in aged animals in multip

109 e of 65.5 years (range, 60-75 years) who had aortic valve or root infection, or both, with M. chimaer

110 major vascular complications, endocarditis, aortic valve re-intervention, and New York Heart Associa

111 were grouped on the basis of the severity of aortic valve regurgitation (AVR) and aortic valve stenos

112 significant serositis and severe mitral and aortic valve regurgitation, controlled with adalimumab,

113 e (BVF) was defined as: valve-related death, aortic valve reintervention, or severe hemodynamic SVD.

114 Rates of procedural secondary outcomes (eg, aortic valve reintervention, pacemaker rates) were more

115 han after surgery (33.3% vs. 25.2%), as were aortic-valve reinterventions (3.2% vs. 0.8%).

116 A strategy of initial aortic valve repair followed by delayed Ross procedure m

117 Of 614 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (11.8% PPMI rate), we included

118 ent for age, sex, and surgical/transcatheter aortic valve replacement (as time-dependent covariates);

119 g coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and aortic valve replacement (AVR) and the relationship betw

120 porary data on loss in life expectancy after aortic valve replacement (AVR) are scarce, particularly

121 h severe aortic stenosis undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) are unknown.

122 of anticoagulation (AC) after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) on valve hemodynamics and

123 1.21-1.97]) and after further adjustment for aortic valve replacement (AVR; adjusted HR, 1.47 [95% CI

124 lar biopsies (10x1x1 mm(3)) were obtained at aortic valve replacement (HFpEF(AVR), n=5; and HFrEF(AVR

125 isk aortic stenosis to undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (n = 221) or surgery (n = 214).

126 e replacement (TAVR) is supplanting surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and medical therapy (MT)

127 noninferior and may be superior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for mortality, stroke, a

128 rged as a reasonable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe

129 aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for real-world propensit

130 aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients 70 years or

131 acement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe

132 aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in the PARTNER (Placemen

133 aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is preferred for patient

134 s with severe aortic stenosis after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic

135 c valve replacement (TAVR) and redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) represent the 2 treatmen

136 aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) results in similar rates

137 being adopted as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

138 ive, high, or intermediate risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

139 supports the widespread use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) among patients who are a

140 Valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and redo surgical aortic

141 ular assist device (LVAD), and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are expensive cardiovasc

142 Conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are often transient.

143 on 276,316 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) at sites in all U.S. sta

144 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for degenerated surgical

145 conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been elusive.

146 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a reasona

147 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a safe an

148 The role of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in this high-risk popula

149 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to sur

150 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being ad

151 ical trial results showed that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is noninferior and may b

152 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is supplanting surgical

153 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the preferred treatme

154 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers another alternati

155 dy was to assess the effect of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on hospitalizations in s

156 The effect of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on kidney function stage

157 aging 30 days and 1 year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgery.

158 h severe aortic stenosis given transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve

159 ogists often determine whether transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve

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

161 is similar after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve

162 surgical risk, treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) results in lower rates o

163 Two competing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technologies are current

164 Restricting transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to centers based on volu

165 d expanding the indication for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to low-risk patients wit

166 OTION) was designed to compare transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to surgical aortic valve

167 Expanding the indication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) toward lower-risk and yo

168 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) use is increasing in pat

169 t on coronary events following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), and no study has determ

170 ause coronary occlusion during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-in-TAVR and present chal

171 ith aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

172 erformance (EP) >=1 year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

173 itis may affect patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

174 ng-term valve durability after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

175 d hs-Tn in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

176 hospitalizations 1 year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

177 ed in-hospital complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

178 ic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

179 omes or results in futility of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

180 HF) readmission is common post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

181 on surgical explantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

182 ly used as secondary access in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

183 tic valve replacement [TAVR] versus surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR]) using trial-adjudicated

184 red across treatment arms (eg, transcatheter aortic valve replacement [TAVR] versus surgical aortic v

185 m/s/year] p = 0.019), and increased risk for aortic valve replacement and death (n = 145; hazard rati

186 cute kidney injury early after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and is an independent predictor

187 esenting a better alternative to concomitant aortic valve replacement and lung transplant in elderly

188 view of reported outcome after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement and to translate this to age-sp

189 VI had an early safety benefit over surgical aortic valve replacement and was associated with faster

190 lar ventricular mass, aortic valve area, and aortic valve replacement as a time-dependent covariate,

191 an indication for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement as agreed by the heart team wer

192 adjustment for outcome predictors including aortic valve replacement as time-dependent covariate, lo

193 ontrol groups after successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement at 14 centers in Spain.

194 ll, 34 893 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement at 445 hospitals were analyzed.

195 ions were commonly reported in transcatheter aortic valve replacement clinical trials.

196 enosis undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement comparing CS versus GA.

197 ysiological mechanisms of post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement complications and provide updat

198 hed patients who had undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, patients w

199 ess the efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic stenosis.

200 evaluated patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement from November 1, 2011 to June 3

201 on individual end points after transcatheter aortic valve replacement has been conducted to date.

202 ave increased every year, exceeding surgical aortic valve replacement in 2019 (72,991 vs. 57,626), an

203 nd SURTAVI trials (Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients)

204 (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients; NCT027012

205 Background To support decision-making in aortic valve replacement in nonelderly adults, we aim to

206 e with aortic valve hemodynamic status after aortic valve replacement in patients at low risk for sur

207 nvalvular atrial fibrillation; transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with symptomatic se

208 In patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the US, vascular complicatio

209 tres experienced in performing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the USA and Australia.

210 ter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement in the whole cohort and within

211 r almost 50% of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement in the younger patients.

212 Although aortic valve replacement is associated with a major bene

213 ith end-stage renal disease (ESRD), surgical aortic valve replacement is associated with higher early

214 This report suggests that transcatheter aortic valve replacement may favorably impact lung trans

215 eter Valves) and registry the outcomes after aortic valve replacement of the 4 flow-gradient groups.

216 Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Registry; NCT03836521).

217 Echocardiography post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement showed a low mean residual grad

218 s from 68 male/46 female patients undergoing aortic valve replacement surgery were obtained at baseli

219 and extra-large aortic annuli, transcatheter aortic valve replacement using 29-mm Sapien-3 and 34-mm

220 ortic Transcatheter Valves) of transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus standard care.

221 tes of clinical events between transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve re

222 onths, the survival benefit of transcatheter aortic valve replacement was also greater in the joint m

223 r the primary analysis cohort, transcatheter aortic valve replacement was performed in 210 (79.8%), a

224 large aortic annuli underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement with 29-mm Sapien-3 (n=640) or

225 for papers reporting clinical outcome after aortic valve replacement with currently available biopro

226 and vascular access method, to transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the first generation Porti

227 Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the self-expanding ACURATE

228 d analysis of the FRAILTY-AVR study (Frailty Aortic Valve Replacement) was performed to analyze the d

229 ave compared bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and no trials have compared bi

230 er self-expanding transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement, but these findings did not cor

231 mbosis has been reported after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, characterized using 4-dimensio

232 created by current generation transcatheter aortic valve replacement, percutaneous endovascular abdo

233 igation in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, percutaneous endovascular abdo

234 ters is well established after transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the role of Tei has not been e

235 patients with severe symptomatic AS awaiting aortic valve replacement, there has been a trend of incr

236 enosis undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement, use of CS compared with GA res

237 consisted of a total of 22 876 referrals for aortic valve replacement, with (N=8098) TAVR and (N=14 7

238 Valve Evolut bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

239 he use of CT-FFR for coronary evaluation pre-aortic valve replacement.

240 er risk of death who may derive benefit from aortic valve replacement.

241 hly 50% of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

242 lung transplant 103 days after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

243 t CS can be safely applied for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

244 2 mm) aortic annuli undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

245 lure, mortality, and treatment futility with aortic valve replacement.

246 progression aortic stenosis and the need for aortic valve replacement.

247 older women and men undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

248 d with the need for PPMI after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

249 e patients should be promptly considered for aortic valve replacement.

250 cohort of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

251 bridged to lung transplant via transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

252 d cell (RBC) transfusion after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

253 lung transplant 56 days after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

254 italization at 1 year compared with surgical aortic valve replacement; however, the effect of treatme

255 ed patients after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement; propensity score-matching iden

256 rosthetic-valve function after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) as compared with surgica

257 During the introduction of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) in the United States, re

258 n reduce these phenomena after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is not known.

259 nt thromboembolic events after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is unclear.

260 replacement (TAVR) as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients with severe aortic

261 5 years after TAVR as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement.

262 s, monocytes, while passing through stenotic aortic valves result in proinflammatory effects that are

263 Aortic valve stenosis (AVS), which is the most common va

264 rity of aortic valve regurgitation (AVR) and aortic valve stenosis (AVS).

265 tional associations of obesity with incident aortic valve stenosis (n = 1,215) and replacement (n = 4

266 (OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.77-1.39]; P=0.810), and aortic valve stenosis (OR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.56-1.90]; P=0

267 cluding subjects with a medical diagnosis of aortic valve stenosis (remaining n=308 683 individuals),

268 x was associated with causal risk ratios for aortic valve stenosis and replacement, respectively, of

269 was causally associated with higher risk of aortic valve stenosis and replacement.

270 ss index is causally associated with risk of aortic valve stenosis and replacement.

271 Causal risk factors for aortic valve stenosis are poorly understood, limiting th

272 g triglycerides is likely to prevent CAD and aortic valve stenosis but may increase thromboembolic ri

273 Whether aortic valve stenosis is accelerated by inflammation and

274 Aortic valve stenosis is an increasingly prevalent degen

275 (Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replace

276 nd the age and sex-adjusted hazard ratio for aortic valve stenosis was 1.3 (95% confidence interval [

277 pandable valve for the treatment of bicuspid aortic valve stenosis) registry included 353 consecutive

278 gh shear stress, as present in patients with aortic valve stenosis, activates multiple monocyte funct

279 The use of TAVI in severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis, asymptomatic severe aortic stenos

280 tionized the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis.

281 s causally associated with increased risk of aortic valve stenosis.

282 ients 70 years or older with isolated severe aortic valve stenosis.

283 lacement in patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis; and antiplatelet agents vorapaxar

284 itral (2.18; 95% CI, 1.71-2.77) and mitral + aortic valve surgery (1.85; 95% CI, 1.33-2.58) and lowes

285 under medical management, and 400 underwent aortic valve surgery (AVS).

286 ndary Ross procedure performed after initial aortic valve surgery achieves superior long-term surviva

287 of initiating public outcomes reporting for aortic valve surgery on rates of valve surgery and in-ho

288 New York Heart Association functional class, aortic valve surgery, LV ejection fraction, LV end-systo

289 hose who had secondary Ross procedure, after aortic valve surgery.

290 factors for PPM implantation after mitral or aortic valve surgery.

291 tion, or a secondary operation after initial aortic valve surgery.

292 xpanding intra-annular Portico transcatheter aortic valve system (Abbott Structural Heart, St Paul, M

293 ial (the Portico Re-sheathable Transcatheter Aortic Valve System US Investigational Device Exemption

294 For patients with severely impacted aortic valves that require replacement, catheter-based b

295 ome 2.0 arrays in calcified and noncalcified aortic valve tissue from 58 patients with AS (mean age,

296 late the behavior of thinner, more compliant aortic valve tissues in a physiologically realistic syst

297 of transcatheter and surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves using standardized criteria.

298 for BAV patient with a normally functioning aortic valve was estimated at 0.05 Z score unit per year

299 area between the anterior mitral leaflet and aortic valve was inspected at myectomy in 106 consecutiv

300 t n-3 PUFA incorporation into human stenotic aortic valves was higher in noncalcified regions compare