| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Ann Thorac Surg 2002;73:37-43
© 2002 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons
a Division of Cardiac Surgery, Cardio-Thoracic Department, University of Pisa Medical School, Pisa, Italy
b Division of Cardiology, Cardio-Thoracic Department, University of Pisa Medical School, Pisa, Italy
Accepted for publication August 31, 2001.
* Address reprint requests to Dr Bortolotti, U.O. Cardiochirurgia, Ospedale Cisanello, via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
e-mail: u.bortolotti{at}cardchir.med.unipi.it
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMaterial and methodsResultsCommentReferences |
|---|
Methods. Two hundred twenty-nine patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with 19 mm (group 1, 53 patients) or 21-mm St. Jude Medical standard prostheses (group 2, 176 patients) were included in the study. Mean follow-up of current survivors was 10 ± 4 years.
Results. Operative mortality was 7.5% in group 1 and 8.5% in group 2. At discharge, an important patient-prosthesis mismatch (effective orifice area index 
0.60 cm2/m2) was present in 18% of group 1 versus 5% in group 2 (p = 0.004). Among patients with body surface area less than 1.70 m2, such mismatch was present in 15% of group 1 versus 2% of group 2 (p = 0.008). At last follow-up New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class (p < 0.001), left ventricular mass reduction (p = 0.02), mean (p = 0.002) and peak transprosthetic gradients (p < 0.001), and effective orifice area index (p = 0.005) were significantly better in group 2. Freedom from sudden death (92% ± 5% vs 99% ± 1%, p = 0.01), valve-related death (84% ± 6% vs 90% ± 5%, p = 0.02), and cardiac events (56% ± 13% vs 86% ± 4%, p = 0.008), were significantly lower in group 1. Effective orifice area index was an independent predictor of late cardiac events.
Conclusions. Although long-term results after aortic valve replacement with small-sized St. Jude Medical standard prostheses are satisfactory, 19-mm valve recipients show a high prevalence of important patient-prosthesis mismatch with less evident functional improvement and higher rate of cardiac events, suggesting a very cautious use of this prosthesis.
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterial and methodsResultsCommentReferences |
|---|
The St. Jude Medical standard prosthesis (SJP) (St. Jude Medical, Inc, St. Paul, MN) has been in use for more than 20 years and represents a point of reference for newer prosthesis design [9], particularly since it is considered to have an excellent hemodynamic performance [10, 11]. However, mean transprosthetic gradients as high as 17 ± 3 mm Hg [12] for the 21-mm SJP, and as high as 22 ± 8 mm Hg [12] for the 19-mm SJP have been reported at rest. Thus the use of small-sized prostheses for AVR may determine a patient-prosthesis mismatch, depending both on the type and size of the valve substitute and on cardiac output [1, 5, 13].
Few data are available on the direct comparison of 19-mm versus 21-mm prostheses, because these valve sizes are usually grouped together as "small-sized prostheses." Our aim was to verify whether the use of a 19-mm SJP versus a 21-mm SJP for AVR is associated with different 15-year clinical outcomes in terms of overall survival and freedom from valve-related complications and cardiac events.
|
Material and methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterial and methodsResultsCommentReferences |
|---|
|
Data collection and follow-up
Preoperative and operative data were obtained by retrospective review of clinical and operative records, and pathology reports. A complete echocardiographic examination before discharge from the hospital was available for 205 patients (98% of the discharged patients), for 49 patients of group 1 (100%), and 156 of group 2 (97%). Based on the effective orifice area index (EOAi) of the prosthesis calculated at discharge, patients were divided into 3 groups, irrespective of prosthesis size [14]: (1) group A, 24 patients with EOAi less than or equal to 0.60 cm2/m2, (2) group B, 149 patients with EOAi more than 0.60 cm2/m2, and less than or equal to 0.90 cm2/m2, and group C, 32 patients with EOAi more than 0.90 cm2/m2.
Follow-up information on hospital survivors was collected during a 6-month interval ending in December 2000. Unsuccessful attempts to trace patients were followed by contact with a family member or with the referring physician. One hundred and nine patients were reevaluated at our outpatient clinic (103 patients underwent a complete echocardiographic study), 46 underwent telephone interviews, and 12 answered a standard follow-up questionnaire for prosthetic valve recipients. Follow-up of hospital survivors was 99% complete (208 of 210) at a mean follow-up time of 8 ± 5 years (range, 70 days to 19 years), for a total follow-up of 1,806 patient-years. For group 1 patients, total follow-up was 402 patient-years (mean, 8 ± 5 years), whereas for group 2 patients total follow-up was 1,404 patient-years (mean, 8 ± 5 years). Three patients in group 1 and 2 in group 2 were removed from follow-up at the time of reoperation on the aortic (4 patients) or mitral valve (1 patient). At last follow-up, there were 36 current survivors with a 19-mm SJP and 126 with a 21-mm SJP, with a mean follow-up time of 10 ± 4 years.
An analysis of the 15-year outcome was performed grouping patients according to prosthesis size. Hospital mortality (death before discharge from the hospital or within 30 days since AVR, or both), major postoperative complications, and prosthesis-related events were defined according to the recently revised guidelines [15]. Cardiac events were defined as new episodes of angina, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and ventricular arrhythmia requiring hospitalization or leading to death. Sudden deaths, defined as unexpected or unexplained deaths of unknown cause, were analyzed both separately and together with valve-related deaths.
Doppler echocardiography
Standard M-mode dimensions were collected according to the American Society of Echocardiography criteria. All Doppler measurements were averaged more than 3 cycles in patients with sinus rhythm or more than 5 cycles in those with atrial fibrillation. From the data obtained with pulsed-wave and continuous-wave Doppler recordings, we calculated the peak and mean gradient across the prosthesis (from the long form of the modified Bernoulli equation), the EOAi, and the left ventricular mass index from Devereux and Reichek’s formula [16].
Statistical analysis
Data are presented as mean plus or minus standard deviation and as simple percentages. Linearized rates were compared between the two groups using a likelihood ratio test. Overall survival and freedom from valve-related complications and cardiac events were determined by Kaplan-Meier actuarial analysis and expressed as percentage of patients who were event free plus or minus standard error. Differences in actuarial freedom between groups of patients were determined using the log-rank test. The linearized rate of postoperative complications was expressed as percent per year plus or minus the standard error.
All variables listed in Table 1 were investigated for association with hospital death, overall death, valve-related complications, sudden death, and cardiac events at univariate analysis. Student’s t test or Wilcoxon test for continuous data and 
2 or Fisher’s test for discrete variables were used, as appropriate. All variables with a p value of less than 0.10 at univariate analysis were entered in the multivariate analysis. Predictors of hospital mortality were identified by means of a logistic regression with forward selection and with a selection cut off set at 0.05. Predictors of events during follow-up were identified by means of Cox’s proportional hazards regression with Z-value cut off set at 2.0. Cut-off points for age were determined with the help of receiver operating characteristic curves, choosing the value with the highest likelihood ratio. Data analysis was performed with the NCSS 2000 software (Statistical Solutions Ltd, Cork, Ireland).
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterial and methodsResultsCommentReferences |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fifteen-year freedom from sudden death was lower for group 1 patients (92% ± 5% vs 99% ± 1%; p = 0.01). With respect to EOAi grouping, actuarial freedom from sudden death was 94% ± 5% for group A, 98% ± 1% for group B, and 96% ± 4% for group C (p > 0.2). From multivariate analysis, older age was the only independent predictor of sudden death (p = 0.03), whereas implantation of a 19-mm versus 21-mm SJP, although associated with the occurrence of sudden death, did not reach statistical significance, probably because of the small number of events observed (p = 0.13; odds ratio, 6.0; confidence interval, 95%, 0.6–60; Table 2).
Functional status and cardiac events
Mean NYHA functional classes at last follow-up were 1.8 ± 0.8 in group 1 versus 1.3 ± 0.5 in group 2 (p < 0.001). Eight patients (22%) in group 1 and 4 patients (3%) in group 2 were in NYHA functional class III (p = 0.01). Details on cardiac events are provided in Table 4. Cardiac events were mainly episodes of congestive heart failure requiring hospitalization, being observed in 10 patients of group 1 (2.5% ± 0.8% per year) and in 7 of group 2 (0.5% ± 0.2% per year; p = 0.002). The linearized incidence of adverse cardiac events in group 1 was similar between patients with a BSA greater than or equal to 1.70 m2 (3.0% ± 2.1% per year) and patients with a smaller BSA (2.4% ± 0.8% per year) (p > 0.2). Actuarial freedom from cardiac events at 15 years was 56% ± 13% and 86% ± 4%, respectively (p = 0.008; Fig 4).
Considering EOAi at discharge from the hospital, actuarial freedom from cardiac events was 56% ± 15% for group A, 80% ± 5% for group B, and 94% ± 4% for group C (p = 0.03; Fig 5). The difference between groups B and C could be due to chance (p > 0.2), whereas both groups had a significantly higher freedom from cardiac events compared with group A (p = 0.04 and p = 0.02, respectively). Multivariate analysis indicated that the EOAi at discharge from the hospital (p = 0.007) and CABG associated with AVR (p = 0.05; odds ratio, 2.6; confidence interval, 95%, 1.0 –7.1; Table 2) were independent predictors of cardiac events during follow-up.
|
|
Although left ventricular mass index was still abnormal at last follow-up in both groups of patients (148 ± 23 g/m2 vs 138 ± 24 g/m2, p = 0.08), the regression of left ventricular hypertrophy was significantly higher in patients with a 21-mm prosthesis than in patients with a 19-mm valve (22% ± 9% vs 18% ± 9%, p = 0.02). A trend to a linear correlation between EOAi at discharge and percent reduction in left ventricular mass was observed (r = 0.201; p = 0.07).
|
Comment |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterial and methodsResultsCommentReferences |
|---|
In the present series, hospital mortality was about 8% in both groups and was mainly influenced by preoperative NYHA functional class (p < 0.001), associated CABG (p = 0.004), and BSA (p = 0.01). In the same time period hospital mortality calculated for all patients who underwent AVR with or without associated CABG, regardless of prosthesis size, was 4.9%, quite lower than that observed in the present series. Overall survival of patients with a 19-mm or 21-mm SJP was similar at 5, 10, and 15 years, comparing favorably with previous reports [17, 18]. Older age (p < 0.001) and CABG associated with AVR (p < 0.001) were independent predictors of overall death. The presence of coronary artery disease requiring revascularization at the time of AVR appears to be a very important risk factor in patients receiving a small-sized SJP. In agreement with previous reports [3, 19–21], and also in our experience, CABG was found to be an independent predictor of hospital and overall death.
Our findings indicate that BSA is an independent risk factor for hospital mortality but not for overall death and sudden death, as observed by others. In particular, Kratz and colleagues [3] identified a BSA of more than 1.90 m2 as an independent risk factor for sudden deaths after AVR with small-sized valves, whereas He and coworkers [20] indicated a BSA of more than 1.70 m2 as a predictor of late death. Moreover, on the basis of the hemodynamic performance, it has been suggested to limit the use of the 21-mm SJP only to patients with a BSA less than or equal to 1.70 m2 [19, 22]. In contrast, other studies reported no clinically relevant problems with the use of small-sized St. Jude and Carbomedics (Sulzer Carbomedics, Inc, Austin, TX) prostheses, even in patients with a BSA of more than 1.70 m2 [11, 23–25].
Valve-related complications and deaths in the present series were comparable with those previously reported for AVR with larger valves in our experience [26] and were not significantly different between 19-mm and 21-mm valve recipients, unless sudden deaths were included among valve-related deaths. From multivariate analysis, independent predictors of valve-related death, including sudden death, were implantation of a 19-mm valve versus a 21-mm valve, male sex, and older age (> 75 years). The rate of sudden death was significantly higher in patients of group 1 than group 2; however, at multivariate analysis only older age (> 75 years) was found to be an independent risk factor for sudden death. Neither BSA, as reported by Kratz and colleagues [3], nor preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction and coronary artery disease, as reported by Debetaz and colleagues [21], were found to be independent predictors of sudden death. It can be hypothesized that sudden death may be related to the high degree of residual left ventricular hypertrophy observed in patients with 19-mm SJP. In fact, percent reduction in left ventricular mass index at last follow-up was significantly lower in patients with a 19-mm valve (p = 0.02).
A significant difference between patients with a 19-mm SJP and those with a 21-mm SJP was found in terms of 15-year freedom from cardiac events (56% ± 13% vs 86% ± 4%, p = 0.008), congestive heart failure being significantly more frequent in the former group (p = 0.002). Indeed, at last follow-up 22% of group 1 patients were in NYHA functional class III compared with only 3% of group 2 (p = 0.01). Preoperative NYHA functional class III–IV was found to be an independent risk factor for hospital death but not for cardiac events during follow-up, at variance with the findings of Kratz and coworkers [3]. Multivariate analysis indicated CABG associated with AVR and EOAi at discharge as the only independent predictors of cardiac events during follow-up. Implantation of a small-sized valve in a patient with a large BSA originates a patient-prosthesis mismatch, usually defined with EOAi less than or equal to 0.90 cm2/m2 [1, 13]. In the present study, EOAi was rather low for both valve sizes and was significantly lower in 19 mm-valve recipients than in 21-mm valve recipients, with 18% versus 5% of patients with EOAi less than or equal to 0.60 cm2/m2 at discharge (p = 0.004), which would be considered a severe aortic stenosis for a native valve [14]. Thus, a size 19-mm valve leads to a higher degree of patient–prosthesis mismatch, not only in patients with a large BSA. In fact, in the present series an important patient–prosthesis mismatch was present in 15% of 19-mm valve recipients with a small BSA (< 1.70 m2). Such patient–prosthesis mismatch has negative implications on effort tolerance and possibly on survival [22]. Although prosthesis size was also associated with the occurrence of cardiac events at univariate analysis, at multivariate analysis only EOAi appeared to have an independent prognostic role, thus showing that the hemodynamic performance of the valve rather than valve size alone influences the occurrence of late cardiac events, particularly from congestive heart failure. The mechanism by which valve hemodynamic performance affects late prognosis may be related to the degree of regression of left ventricular hypertrophy, which is a well-known risk factor for the development of congestive heart failure and anginal symptoms. In fact, a trend to a linear correlation between EOAi at discharge from the hospital and percent of left ventricular mass reduction at last follow-up was observed (p = 0.07). The degree of regression of left ventricular hypertrophy was also associated with prosthesis size, being significantly higher in 21-mm valve recipients than in patients with a 19-mm valve (p = 0.02).
Importantly, in the present series we did not observe a complete regression of left ventricular hypertrophy in either group of patients, as also reported by others [2, 4, 27]. Concordantly, peak and mean transprosthetic pressure gradients were relatively high, although comparable to those previously reported for small-sized St. Jude Medical aortic valves [4, 8, 11].
The present study has the limitations of a retrospective study where follow-up is carried out at only one point and analyzes a relatively small population, particularly concerning 19-mm valve recipients. However, very few data are available in the literature comparing 2 small-sized prostheses with each other. Such comparison is quite relevant to the surgeon who often faces the difficult choice between small-sized valves when operating on a small aortic annulus.
Breifly, in conclusion, our study shows satisfactory long-term results after AVR with both 19-mm and 21-mm SJP. However, a less evident regression of left ventricular hypertrophy and a higher rate of cardiac events are observed after AVR with 19-mm SJP. In patients who are candidates for AVR with a mechanical prosthesis, and in whom an active lifestyle is expected, it is our current policy to avoid the use of a 19-mm prosthesis, even in the presence of a small BSA, and to consider alternative surgical approaches when a larger prosthesis cannot be directly implanted.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterial and methodsResultsCommentReferences |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Urso, R. Sadaba, and G. Aldamiz-Echevarria Is patient-prosthesis mismatch an independent risk factor for early and mid-term overall mortality in adult patients undergoing aortic valve replacement? Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, September 1, 2009; 9(3): 510 - 518. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Okamura, A. Yamaguchi, M. Tanaka, K. Naito, N. Kimura, C. Kimura, T. Kobinata, T. Ino, and H. Adachi The 17-mm St. Jude Medical Regent Valve Is a Valid Option for Patients With a Small Aortic Annulus Ann. Thorac. Surg., January 1, 2009; 87(1): 90 - 94. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J Mascherbauer, R Rosenhek, C Fuchs, E Pernicka, U Klaar, C Scholten, M Heger, G Wollenek, G Maurer, and H Baumgartner Moderate patient-prosthesis mismatch after valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis has no impact on short-term and long-term mortality Heart, December 1, 2008; 94(12): 1639 - 1645. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 2006 WRITING COMMITTEE MEMBERS, R. O. Bonow, B. A. Carabello, K. Chatterjee, A. C. de Leon Jr, D. P. Faxon, M. D. Freed, W. H. Gaasch, B. W. Lytle, R. A. Nishimura, et al. 2008 Focused Update Incorporated Into the 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 Revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease): Endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Circulation, October 7, 2008; 118(15): e523 - e661. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. O. Bonow, B. A. Carabello, K. Chatterjee, A. C. de Leon Jr, D. P. Faxon, M. D. Freed, W. H. Gaasch, B. W. Lytle, R. A. Nishimura, P. T. O'Gara, et al. 2008 Focused Update Incorporated Into the 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 Revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease) Endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 23, 2008; 52(13): e1 - e142. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S Bleiziffer, W B Eichinger, I Hettich, D Ruzicka, M Wottke, R Bauernschmitt, and R Lange Impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on exercise capacity in patients after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement Heart, May 1, 2008; 94(5): 637 - 641. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J.-L. Monin, M. Monchi, M. E.W. Kirsch, H. Petit-Eisenmann, S. Baleynaud, C. Chauvel, D. Metz, C. Adams, J.-P. Quere, P. Gueret, et al. Low-gradient aortic stenosis: impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on survival Eur. Heart J., November 1, 2007; 28(21): 2620 - 2626. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Pibarot and J. G. Dumesnil Prosthesis-patient mismatch in the mitral position: Old concept, new evidences J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2007; 133(6): 1405 - 1408. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Pibarot and J. G Dumesnil Prevention of valve prosthesis--patient mismatch before aortic valve replacement: does it matter and is it feasible? Heart, May 1, 2007; 93(5): 549 - 551. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Bleiziffer, W. B Eichinger, I. Hettich, R. Guenzinger, D. Ruzicka, R. Bauernschmitt, and R. Lange Prediction of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch prior to aortic valve replacement: which is the best method? Heart, May 1, 2007; 93(5): 615 - 620. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. O. Bonow, B. A. Carabello, K. Chatterjee, A. C. de Leon Jr, D. P. Faxon, M. D. Freed, W. H. Gaasch, B. W. Lytle, R. A. Nishimura, P. T. O'Gara, 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 Revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease) Developed in Collaboration With the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 1, 2006; 48(3): e1 - e148. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P Pibarot and J G Dumesnil Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention Heart, August 1, 2006; 92(8): 1022 - 1029. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. G. Dumesnil and P. Pibarot Prosthesis-patient mismatch and clinical outcomes: The evidence continues to accumulate J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., May 1, 2006; 131(5): 952 - 955. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. B. Vanky, E. Hakanson, E. Tamas, and R. Svedjeholm Risk Factors for Postoperative Heart Failure in Patients Operated on for Aortic Stenosis Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 2006; 81(4): 1297 - 1304. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Tasca, Z. Mhagna, S. Perotti, P. B. Centurini, T. Sabatini, A. Amaducci, F. Brunelli, M. Cirillo, M. D. Tomba, E. Quiani, et al. Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Cardiac Events and Midterm Mortality After Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Pure Aortic Stenosis Circulation, January 31, 2006; 113(4): 570 - 576. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Mohty-Echahidi, J. F. Malouf, S. E. Girard, H. V. Schaff, D. E. Grill, M. E. Enriquez-Sarano, and F. A. Miller Jr Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Long-Term Survival in Patients With Small St Jude Medical Mechanical Prostheses in the Aortic Position Circulation, January 24, 2006; 113(3): 420 - 426. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. G. Koch, F. Khandwala, F. G. Estafanous, F. D. Loop, and E. H. Blackstone Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Size on Functional Recovery After Aortic Valve Replacement Circulation, June 21, 2005; 111(24): 3221 - 3229. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Imanaka, O. Kohmoto, S. Nishimura, Y. Yokote, and S. Kyo Impact of postoperative blood pressure control on regression of left ventricular mass following valve replacement for aortic stenosis Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., June 1, 2005; 27(6): 994 - 999. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. W.H. Sutherland, T. E. Perry, Y. Yu, M. C. Sherwood, E. Rabkin, Y. Masuda, G. A. Garcia, D. L. McLellan, G. C. Engelmayr Jr, M. S. Sacks, et al. From Stem Cells to Viable Autologous Semilunar Heart Valve Circulation, May 31, 2005; 111(21): 2783 - 2791. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Li, J. G. Dumesnil, P. Mathieu, and P. Pibarot Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on pulmonary arterial pressure after mitral valve replacement J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., April 5, 2005; 45(7): 1034 - 1040. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Okuyama, K. Hashimoto, H. Kurosawa, K. Tanaka, Y. Sakamoto, and K. Shiratori Midterm results of Manouguian double valve replacement: Comparison with standard double valve replacement J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., April 1, 2005; 129(4): 869 - 874. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Otero, J. L. Pomar, J. M. Revuelta, and J. J. Rufilanchas Comparative Evaluation of Small-Size Sorin Slimline and St. Jude HP Heart Valve Prostheses Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 2005; 79(4): 1284 - 1290. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Tasca, F. Brunelli, M. Cirillo, M. DallaTomba, Z. Mhagna, G. Troise, and E. Quaini Impact of Valve Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Left Ventricular Mass Regression Following Aortic Valve Replacement Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 2005; 79(2): 505 - 510. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Blais, J. G. Dumesnil, R. Baillot, S. Simard, D. Doyle, and P. Pibarot Impact of Valve Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Short-Term Mortality After Aortic Valve Replacement Circulation, August 26, 2003; 108(8): 983 - 988. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. H. Rahimtoola Choice of prosthetic heart valve for adult patients J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., March 19, 2003; 41(6): 893 - 904. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ANN THORAC SURG | ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN | EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG |
| J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG | ICVTS | ALL CTSNet JOURNALS |
