The risks and benefits of reoperative aortic valve replacement

Heart Surgery Forum

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 102-105

  Gaudiani, Vincent A ^a   Grunkemeier, Gary L ^b   Castro, L J ^a   Fisher, Audrey L ^a   Wu, YingXing ^b  

^a SEQUOIA HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b EARLE A CHILES RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

WARFARIN;

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ANTICOAGULANT THERAPY; AORTA VALVE REPLACEMENT; CARDIOPULMONARY BYPASS; DIALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF DISEASES; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; LONG TERM CARE; LONGEVITY; MALE; MORTALITY; OPERATION DURATION; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REOPERATION; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SEX DIFFERENCE; SHOCK; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT INDICATION;

EID: 2342547096     PISSN: 10983511     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Akins CW. 1995. Results with mechanical cardiac valvular prostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 60:1836-44.
2. Akins CW, Buckley MJ, Daggett WM, et al. 1998. Risk of reoperative valve replacement for failed mitral and aortic bioprostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 65:1545-51.
3. Akins CW, Hilgenberg AD, Vlahakes GJ, MacGillivray TE, Torchiana DF, Madsen JC. 2002. Results of bioprosthetic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement performed with concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 74:1098-106.
4. Butchart EG, Payne N, Li HH, Buchan Y, Maudana Y, Grunkemeier GL. 2002. Better anticoagulation control improves survival after valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 123:715-23.
5. Carrier M, Pellerin M, Perrault LP, et al. 2001. Aortic valve replacement with mechanical and biologic prosthesis in middle-aged patients. Ann Thorac Surg 71(suppl):S253-6.
6. David TE, Ivanov J, Armstrong S, Feindel CM, Cohen G. 2001. Late results of heart valve replacement with the Hancock II bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 121:268-77.
7. Grover FL, Hammermeister KE, Burchfiel C. 1990. Initial report of the Veterans Administration Preoperative Risk Assessment Study for Cardiac Surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 50:12-28.
8. Grunkemeier GL, Jin R. 2001. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of clinical risk models. Ann Thorac Surg 72:323-6.
9. Grunkemeier GL, Wu Y, Furnary AP. 2003. Cumulative sum techniques for assessing surgical results. Ann Thorac Surg 76:663-7.
10. Hammermeister KE, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Grover FL, Oprian C, Rahimtoola SH. 2000. Outcomes 15 years after replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs Randomized Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 36:1152-8.
11. Hammermeister KE, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Oprian C, Kim T, Rahimtoola S. 1993. A comparison of outcomes in men 11 years after heart-valve replacement with a mechanical valve or bioprosthesis: Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study on Valvular Heart Disease. N Engl J Med 328:1289-96.
12. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. 1980. A goodness-of-fit test for the multiple logistic regression model. Commun Star A10:1043-69.
13. Kon ND, Riley RD, Adair SM, Kitzman DW, Cordell AR. 2002. Eight-year results of aortic root replacement with the Freestyle stentless porcine aortic root bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 73:1817-21.
14. Oxenham H, Bloomfield P, Wheatley DJ, et al. 2003. Twenty year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. Heart 89:715-21.
15. Peterstein DS, Cen Y, Cheruvu S, et al. 1999. Long-term outcome after biologic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in 841 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 117:890-7.
16. Rahimtoola SH. 2003. Choice of prosthetic heart valve for adult patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 41:893-904.
17. Sidhu P, O'Kane H, Ali N, et al. 2001. Mechanical or bioprosthetic valves in the elderly: a 20-year comparison. Ann Thorac Surg 71(suppl):S257-60.
18. Taylor KM. 2003. The Edinburgh heart valve study. Heart 89:697-8.