Does valve design impact the maximum implantable bioprosthetic diameter? A prospective, multicenter observational study

Journal of Heart Valve Disease

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 662-666

  David, Irving B ^a   Catinella, Frank ^a   Herskowitz, Kenneth ^a  

^a Heart Lung Surgical Institute of South Florida   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AORTA VALVE DISEASE; AORTA VALVE PROSTHESIS; AORTA VALVE REGURGITATION; AORTA VALVE REPLACEMENT; AORTA VALVE STENOSIS; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; GENERAL CONDITION IMPROVEMENT; HEART VALVE BIOPROSTHESIS; HEMODYNAMICS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SAFETY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STANDARDIZATION; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AORTIC VALVE; BIOPROSTHESIS; BODY WEIGHTS AND MEASURES; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; PROSTHESIS FITTING;

EID: 36949031487     PISSN: 09668519     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, et al. ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease). J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:598-675
2. Muneretto C, Bisleri G, Negri A, Manfredi J. The concept of patient-prosthetic mismatch. J Heart Valve Dis 2004;13(Suppl.1):S59-S62
3. Rao V, Jamieson WRE, Ivanov J, Armstrong S, David TE. Prosthesis-patient mismatch affects survival after aortic valve replacement. Circulation 2000;102(Suppl.III):III5-III9
4. Khan SS, Siegel RJ, DeRobertis MA, et al. Regression of hypertrophy after Carpentier-Edwards pericardial aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 2000;69:531-535
5. Eichinger WB, Botzenhardt F, Günzinger R, et al. Left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement with the Mosaic bioprosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis 2002;11:529-536
6. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Lemieux M, Cartier P, Metras J, Durand LG. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on hemodynamic and symptomatic status, morbidity, and mortality after aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthetic heart valve. J Heart Valve Dis 1998;7:211-218
7. Gonzalez-Jutaney JR. Design and flow characteristics of replacement cardiac valves. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1996;10:201-206
8. Dellgren G, David TE, Raanani E, Armstrong S, Ivanov J, Rakowski H. Late hemodynamic and clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2002;124:146-154
9. Jamieson WRE, Janusz MT, et al. Hemodynamic comparison of second- and third-generation stented bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71:S282-S284
10. Eichinger WB, Botzenhardt F, Günzinger R, et al. The ratio of effective orifice area by patient aortic annulus area: A better way to compare different bioprostheses? A prospective randomised comparison of the Mosaic and Perimount bioprostheses in aortic position. J Heart Valve Dis 2004;13:382-389
11. Walther T, Lehmann S, Falk V, et al. Prospectively randomized evaluation of stented xenograft hemodynamic function in the aortic position. Circulation 2004;110:74-78
12. Eichinger WB, Botzenhardt F, Keithahn A, et al. Exercise hemodynamics of bovine versus porcine bioprostheses: A prospective randomized comparison of the Mosaic and Perimount aortic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005;129:1056-1063
13. Seitelberger R, Bialy J, Gottardi R, et al. Relation between size of prosthesis and valve gradient: Comparison of two aortic bioprosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004;25:358-363