Durability of pericardial versus porcine bioprosthetic heart valves

Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Volumn 144, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1381-1386

  Grunkemeier, Gary L ^a   Furnary, Anthony P ^b   Wu, Yingxing ^a   Wang, Lian ^a   Starr, Albert ^c  

^a Medical Data Research Center   (United States)

^b PROVIDENCE ST VINCENT MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AORTA VALVE PROSTHESIS; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS SURGERY; EXPLANT; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GENDER; HEART VALVE BIOPROSTHESIS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MITRAL VALVE PROSTHESIS; MORTALITY; PERICARDIUM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SWINE;

AGED; ANIMALS; AORTIC VALVE; BIOPROSTHESIS; DEVICE REMOVAL; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; HUMANS; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; MALE; MITRAL VALVE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PERICARDIUM; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; REOPERATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SWINE; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84869090010     PISSN: 00225223     EISSN: 1097685X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.08.060     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. G. Gao, Y. Wu, G.L. Grunkemeier, A.P. Furnary, and A. Starr Durability of pericardial versus porcine aortic valves J Am Coll Cardiol 44 2004 384 388
2. S.W. Jamieson, and M.M. Madani The choice of valve protheses J Am Coll Cardiol 44 2004 389 390
3. E.L. Kaplan, and P. Meier Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations J Am Stat Assoc 53 1958 457 481
4. D.R. Cox Regression models and life tables J Royal Stat Society Series B 34 1972 187 220
5. J.P. Puvimanasinghe, J.J. Takkenberg, M.J. Eijkemans, E.W. Steyerberg, L.A. van Herwerden, and G.L. Grunkemeier Prognosis after aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve: use of microsimulation Ann Thorac Surg 80 2005 825 831
6. T.E. David, S. Armstrong, and M. Maganti Hancock II bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: the gold standard of bioprosthetic valves durability? Ann Thorac Surg 90 2010 775 781
7. S.M. Said, E. Ashikhmina, K.L. Greason, R.M. Suri, S.J. Park, and R.C. Daly Do pericardial bioprostheses improve outcome of elderly patients undergoing aortic valve replacement? Ann Thorac Surg 93 2012 1868 1875
8. P.K. Andersen, R.B. Geskus, T. de Witte, and H. Putter Competing risks in epidemiology: possibilities and pitfalls Int J Epidemiol 41 2012 861 870
9. M.T. Koller, H. Raatz, E.W. Steyerberg, and M. Wolbers Competing risks and the clinical community: irrelevance or ignorance? Stat Med 31 2012 1089 1097
10. H. Putter Special issue about competing risks and multi-state models J Stat Software 38 2011 1 4
11. D.A. Southern, P.D. Faris, R. Brant, P.D. Galbraith, C.M. Norris, and M.L. Knudtson Kaplan-Meier methods yielded misleading results in competing risk scenarios J Clin Epidemiol 59 2006 1110 1114
12. T.H. Scheike, and M.J. Zhang Flexible competing risks regression modeling and goodness-of-fit Lifetime Data Anal 14 2008 464 483
13. H. Putter, M. Fiocco, and R.B. Geskus Tutorial in biostatistics: competing risks and multi-state models Stat Med 26 2007 2389 2430
14. J.P. Fine, and R.J. Gray A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk J Am Stat Assoc 94 1999 496 509