ライフサイエンスコーパス: bioprosthetic valve

1 3 (24%) with a conduit; and 194 (25%) with a bioprosthetic valve.

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

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

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

5 ves will have similar durability as surgical bioprosthetic valves.

6 thetic valve failure of transcatheter aortic bioprosthetic valves.

7 of developing SVD among patients with aortic bioprosthetic valves.

8 e vast majority of patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves.

9 are undergoing aortic valve replacement with bioprosthetic valves.

10 es and the enhanced haemodynamic function of bioprosthetic valves.

11 stricted to slightly modified mechanical and bioprosthetic valves.

12 All four patients had bioprosthetic valves.

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

14 ration and the surveillance of patients with bioprosthetic valves.

15 I: 1.4-4.3]; P = 0.001), TPVR into a stented bioprosthetic valve (1.7 [95% CI: 1.2-2.5]; P = 0.007),

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

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

18 9.6 years, 70% female, 96.7% failed surgical bioprosthetic valves, 63.3% single splitting and 36.7% d

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

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

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

22 Bioprosthetic valves are a good replacement alternative

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

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

25 Bioprosthetic valves are recommended for patients aged >

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

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

28 mes in young patients who underwent AVR with bioprosthetic valves (Bio_AVR group) versus mechanical p

29 Bioprosthetic valve (BPV) thrombosis is considered a rel

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

31 outcomes in women with normally functioning bioprosthetic valves (BPVs) are often good, structural v

32 indications to younger patients, the use of bioprosthetic valves (BPVs) has considerably increased.

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

34 vances in the imaging of aortic stenosis and bioprosthetic valve degeneration and explore how these t

35 The frequencies of imaging evidence of bioprosthetic valve degeneration at baseline were simila

36 isk of native valve stenosis progression and bioprosthetic valve degeneration in research trials.

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

38 (18)F-fluoride PET-CT identifies subclinical bioprosthetic valve degeneration, providing powerful pre

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

40 ves that require replacement, catheter-based bioprosthetic valve deployment offers a minimally invasi

41 All ex vivo, degenerate bioprosthetic valves displayed (18)F-fluoride PET uptake

42 ess native aortic valve disease activity and bioprosthetic valve durability in patients with TAVI in

43 retained native aortic valve, and regarding bioprosthetic valve durability, after transcatheter aort

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

45 ferences in late adverse clinical events and bioprosthetic valve durability.

46 o investigate the impact of BPD on long-term bioprosthetic valve durability.

47 long-term assessment of transcatheter aortic bioprosthetic valves durability is limited by the poor s

48 r, SEV implantation was associated with less bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (8.4% vs 41.8%; absolute

49 Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) and bioprosthetic

50 The incidence and clinical importance of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) in patients underg

51 s of long-term all-cause mortality and early bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD), defined as increa

52 e compared to those with other mechanisms of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD).

53 ances, cardiac structural complications, and bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure (including v

54 s to develop a new classification schema for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure.

55 Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and reoperations/reinter

56 outcomes and a markedly reduced incidence of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction through 12 months, inclu

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

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

59 alve function end point was the incidence of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction, both assessed through 1

60 ted tomography (CT), may represent a form of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction.

61 riority) and a composite end point measuring bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction (tested for superiority)

62 estimate of the percentage of patients with bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction through 12 months was 9.

63 al outcomes and was superior with respect to bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction through 12 months.

64 3.5% and 32.8%; and percentage of women with bioprosthetic-valve dysfunction, 10.2% and 43.3% (all P<

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

66 I, 0.15-0.95]; P=0.039), and a lower rate of bioprosthetic valve failure (2.8% versus 5.1%; subdistri

67 hocardiographic follow-up and/or SVD-related bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) at 5 years.

68 Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) may be caused by struc

69 Bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) was defined as: valve-

70 ate into differences in clinical outcomes or bioprosthetic valve failure 3 years after transcatheter

71 tients who had undergone Redo TAVI for Lotus bioprosthetic valve failure in 5 centers.

72 Bioprosthetic valve failure is reported for the valve-im

73 Bioprosthetic valve failure occurred in 19 patients with

74 rs) structural valve deterioration (SVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure of transcatheter aortic biop

75 The 5-year bioprosthetic valve failure rate was 2.7%, including a 0

76 Bioprosthetic valve failure rates were also comparable:

77 Furthermore, bioprosthetic valve failure rates were low with no incid

78 nificant differences in clinical outcomes or bioprosthetic valve failure throughout 3 years.

79 Incidence of SVD and bioprosthetic valve failure were defined according to ne

80 The incidences of SVD and bioprosthetic valve failure were not significantly diffe

81 2 and 3 hemodynamic valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure, along with improved biopros

82 hrombosis is rare (1.2%) and associated with bioprosthetic valve failure, neurologic or thromboemboli

83 ncluding hemodynamic valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure, were similar for TAVR and s

84 atheter heart valves (THVs) and present with bioprosthetic valve failure.

85 e 2 and 3 hemodynamic valve deterioration or bioprosthetic valve failure.

86 sive alternative for high-risk patients with bioprosthetic valve failure.

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

88 Bioprosthetic-valve failure occurred in 3.3% of the pati

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

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

91 Compared with bioprosthetic valves, freedom from structural valve dete

92 xplanted self-expanding transcatheter aortic bioprosthetic valves from clinical trials and to compare

93 cant data on long-term clinical outcomes and bioprosthetic-valve function after transcatheter aortic-

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

95 Both surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic valves have limited durability because of

96 rosthetic valve failure, along with improved bioprosthetic valve hemodynamic parameters over time.

97 led to the development of mechanical valves, bioprosthetic valves, homografts, stented valves, the Ro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

106 The durability of transcatheter aortic bioprosthetic valves is a crucial issue, but data are sc

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

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

109 on after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with bioprosthetic valves, leading to cycles of left ventricu

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

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

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

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

114 ng stroke, associated clinical outcomes, and bioprosthetic valve performance at 3 years between TAVR

115 perience have improved procedural safety and bioprosthetic valve performance.

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

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

118 nction compared to clinically used pediatric bioprosthetic valves tested in the same model.

119 The percentage of bioprosthetic valves that failed was 6.9% in the TAVR gr

120 Bioprosthetic valve thrombosis (BPVT) is considered unco

121 Early in the prevention and treatment of bioprosthetic valve thrombosis (BPVT), anticoagulation i

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

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

124 Bioprosthetic valve use has increased significantly.

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

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

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

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

129 AVR with a bioprosthetic valve was associated with progressive LV h

130 Explanted degenerate bioprosthetic valves were examined ex vivo.

131 Bioprosthetic valves were implanted in 969 patients (88%

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

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