HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Gary L. Grunkemeier Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Takkenberg, J. J.M. Articles by Grunkemeier, G. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Takkenberg, J. J.M. Articles by Grunkemeier, G. L. Related Collections Education

Ann Thorac Surg 2003;75:1372-1376
© 2003 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

---

The statistician’s page

Simulation models to predict outcome after aortic valve replacement

^a Department of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
^b Providence Health System, Portland, Oregon, USA

^* Address reprint requests to Dr Takkenberg, Department of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Bd162, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
e-mail: takkenberg@thch.azr.nl

The first 300 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Which valve substitute would you prefer to implant in a 63-year-old male patient? And which valve substitute would in your opinion be best for a 36-year-old female patient? It can be quite complicated to predict prognosis after implantation of a certain aortic valve substitute in the individual patient who requires aortic valve replacement. Multiple interrelated factors (patient, physician, and prosthesis related) affect outcome after aortic valve replacement. Published clinical experiences provide information on outcome after aortic valve replacement on a group level. By applying standard parametric and semiparametric models for risk factor assessment, it is possible to identify factors that may influence long-term outcome in that particular patient group. One can translate this to the outcome in the individual patient by inserting his or her risk factors into the equation for the model. Although feasible, it is often not an easy task because it necessitates integration of information on many interrelated factors that simultaneously play a role. Simulation techniques may provide a useful adjunct to standard methods because they allow modeling of complex outcome paths resulting from many simultaneous risks.

Recently, several authors reported on the use of simulation techniques to predict outcome after aortic valve replacement and to support prosthetic valve choice [1–4]. These studies use a complex and mostly unknown methodology, and are therefore often difficult to interpret.

This report focuses on the microsimulation method that is used in the article in this issue [5] by Takkenberg and colleagues on outcome after aortic root replacement with cryopreserved allografts. The background and structure of the aortic valve replacement model will be described, the steps that are taken during one simulation cycle will be illustrated, and the advantages and disadvantages using this methodology will be highlighted.

Background and structure of the microsimulation model

Simulation methodologies emerged from the field of operational research. The . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. W.A. van Geldorp, M. van Gameren, A. P. Kappetein, B. Arabkhani, L. E. de Groot-de Laat, J. J.M. Takkenberg, and A. J.J.C. Bogers Therapeutic decisions for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: room for improvement? Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., June 1, 2009; 35(6): 953 - 957. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. W.A. van Geldorp, W.R. Eric Jamieson, A. P. Kappetein, J. Ye, G. J. Fradet, M. J.C. Eijkemans, G. L. Grunkemeier, A. J.J.C. Bogers, and J. J.M. Takkenberg Patient outcome after aortic valve replacement with a mechanical or biological prosthesis: Weighing lifetime anticoagulant-related event risk against reoperation risk J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., April 1, 2009; 137(4): 881 - 886. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. W.A. van Geldorp, W.R. E. Jamieson, A. P. Kappetein, J. P.A. Puvimanasinghe, M. J.C. Eijkemans, G. L. Grunkemeier, J. J.M. Takkenberg, and A. J.J.C. Bogers Usefulness of microsimulation to translate valve performance into patient outcome: Patient prognosis after aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier Edwards supra-annular valve J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2007; 134(3): 702 - 709. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. J.M. Takkenberg, L. M.A. Klieverik, J. A. Bekkers, A. P. Kappetein, J. W. Roos, M. J.C. Eijkemans, and A. J.J.C. Bogers Allografts for aortic valve or root replacement: insights from an 18-year single-center prospective follow-up study Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., May 1, 2007; 31(5): 851 - 859. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. L. Grunkemeier, R. Jin, M. J.C. Eijkemans, and J. J.M. Takkenberg Actual and Actuarial Probabilities of Competing Risks: Apples and Lemons Ann. Thorac. Surg., May 1, 2007; 83(5): 1586 - 1592. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. P. Kappetein, J. J.M. Takkenberg, J. P.A. Puvimanasinghe, W.R. E. Jamieson, M. Eijkemans, and Ad.J.J.C. Bogers Does the type of biological valve affect patient outcome? Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, August 1, 2006; 5(4): 398 - 402. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. P.A. Puvimanasinghe, J. J.M. Takkenberg, M. J.C. Eijkemans, L. A. van Herwerden, W.R. E. Jamieson, G. L. Grunkemeier, J. D. F. Habbema, and A. J.J.C. Bogers Comparison of Carpentier-Edwards pericardial and supraannular bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., March 1, 2006; 29(3): 374 - 379. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. P.A. Puvimanasinghe, J. J.M. Takkenberg, M. J.C. Eijkemans, E. W. Steyerberg, L. A. van Herwerden, G. L. Grunkemeier, J. D. F. Habbema, and A. J.J.C. Bogers Prognosis After Aortic Valve Replacement With the Carpentier-Edwards Pericardial Valve: Use of Microsimulation Ann. Thorac. Surg., September 1, 2005; 80(3): 825 - 831. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J P A Puvimanasinghe, J J M Takkenberg, M B Edwards, M J C Eijkemans, E W Steyerberg, L A van Herwerden, K M Taylor, G L Grunkemeier, J D F Habbema, and A J J C Bogers Comparison of outcomes after aortic valve replacement with a mechanical valve or a bioprosthesis using microsimulation Heart, October 1, 2004; 90(10): 1172 - 1178. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. J.M. Takkenberg, J. P.A. Puvimanasinghe, and L. A. van Herwerden Optimal target international normalized ratio for patients with mechanical heart valves J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 1, 2004; 44(5): 1142 - 1143. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. J. J. C. Bogers, A.-P. Kappetein, J. W. Roos-Hesselink, and J. J.M. Takkenberg Is a bicuspid aortic valve a risk factor for adverse outcome after an autograft procedure? Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 2004; 77(6): 1998 - 2003. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]