Literature DB >> 24445788

[Patient adapted valve selection: biological vs. mechanical heart valve replacement in aortic valve diseases].

S Brose1, R Autschbach, M Engel, T Rauch, F W Rauch.   

Abstract

Since the first aortic valve replacement performed by Harken in 1960, the operation of aortic valve disease by replacing the native valve with a heart valve prosthesis has become one of the most frequently performed procedures in cardiac surgery. For valve replacement there are biological (xenografts and homografts) and mechanical heart valve prostheses available. When choosing the most suitable prosthesis the limited durability of a biological prosthesis and the risks of lifelong anticoagulation for a mechanical prosthesis have to be balanced.In this article the indication for operation of aortic valve stenosis and aortic regurgitation are discussed first. Based on the literature of the last 2 years the advantages and disadvantages of mechanical and biological heart valve prostheses (xenograft, homograft and ROSS procedure) are discussed. In addition rarely used techniques like aortic valve reconstruction are presented.Due to the fact that a biological prosthesis has a durability of 12-15 years and the risk of bleeding complications under anticoagulation grows with increasing age, the choice of a biological prosthesis can be recommended from the age of 65 years. Results of long-term studies at to whether this limit can be diminished by using a stentless biological prosthesis have to be awaited.

Entities:  

Year:  2001        PMID: 24445788     DOI: 10.1007/s003920170008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Z Kardiol        ISSN: 0300-5860


  31 in total

1.  Cardiac surgery in Germany during 1999.

Authors:  P Kalmár; E Irrgang
Journal:  Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 1.827

2.  Oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation and risk of bleeding. A Multicenter Inception Cohort Study.

Authors:  V Pengo; C Legnani; F Noventa; G Palareti
Journal:  Thromb Haemost       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 5.249

3.  Aortic valve sparing operations: an update.

Authors:  T E David; S Armstrong; J Ivanov; G D Webb
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 4.330

4.  Medium-term follow up of pulmonary autograft aortic valve replacement: technical advances and echocardiographic follow up.

Authors:  P A Linden; L H Cohn
Journal:  J Heart Valve Dis       Date:  2001-01

5.  Human tissue valves in aortic position: determinants of reoperation and valve regurgitation.

Authors:  T P Willems; J J Takkenberg; E W Steyerberg; V E Kleyburg-Linkers; J R Roelandt; E Bos; L A van Herwerden
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2001-03-20       Impact factor: 29.690

6.  Aortic valve replacement for endocarditis: determinants of early and late outcome.

Authors:  S M Langley; C Alexiou; H M Stafford; M J Dalrymple-Hay; M P Haw; S A Livesey; J L Monro
Journal:  J Heart Valve Dis       Date:  2000-09

7.  Prognostic implications of echocardiographically determined left ventricular mass in the Framingham Heart Study.

Authors:  D Levy; R J Garrison; D D Savage; W B Kannel; W P Castelli
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1990-05-31       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Late results of heart valve replacement with the Hancock II bioprosthesis.

Authors:  T E David; J Ivanov; S Armstrong; C M Feindel; G Cohen
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 5.209

9.  Allograft aortic valve replacement: long-term follow-up.

Authors:  M F O'Brien; E G Stafford; M A Gardner; P G Pohlner; P J Tesar; A D Cochrane; T K Mau; K L Gall; S E Smith
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 4.330

10.  Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine bioprosthesis: clinical performance to seventeen years.

Authors:  W R Jamieson; A I Munro; R T Miyagishima; P Allen; L H Burr; G F Tyers
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 4.330

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.