CLINICAL STUDY: VALVE DISEASE
Prediction of operative mortality after valve replacement surgery
Fred H. Edwards, MD, FACC*,
Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, FACC ,
Laura P. Coombs, PhD,
Elizabeth R. DeLong, PhD,
W. R. Eric Jamieson, MD, FACC ,
A. Laurie W. Shroyer, PhD and
Frederick L. Grover, MD, FACC
* Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Florida Health Science Center, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, USA
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
University of Colorado Health Science Center, Denver, Colorado, USA
Manuscript received July 28, 2000;
revised manuscript received October 16, 2000,
accepted November 29, 2000.
Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Fred H. Edwards, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Florida Health Science Center, 653-2 West Eighth Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32209-6511
fhe{at}mediaone.net
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
OBJECTIVES
We sought to develop national benchmarks for valve replacement surgery by developing statistical risk models of operative mortality.
BACKGROUND
National risk models for coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) have gained widespread acceptance, but there are no similar models for valve replacement surgery.
METHODS
The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Surgery Database was used to identify risk factors associated with valve surgery from 1994 through 1997. The population was drawn from 49,073 patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) and from 43,463 patients undergoing CABG combined with AVR or MVR. Two multivariable risk models were developed: one for isolated AVR or MVR and one for CABG plus AVR or CABG plus MVR.
RESULTS
Operative mortality rates for AVR, MVR, combined CABG/AVR and combined CABG/MVR were 4.00%, 6.04%, 6.80% and 13.29%, respectively. The strongest independent risk factors were emergency/salvage procedures, recent infarction, reoperations and renal failure. The c-indexes were 0.77 and 0.74 for the isolated valve replacement and combined CABG/valve replacement models, respectively. These models retained their predictive accuracy when applied to a prospective patient population undergoing operation from 1998 to 1999. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic was 10.6 (p = 0.225) for the isolated valve replacement model and 12.2 (p = 0.141) for the CABG/valve replacement model.
CONCLUSIONS
Statistical models have been developed to accurately predict operative mortality after valve replacement surgery. These models can be used to enhance quality by providing a national benchmark for valve replacement surgery.
|
Abbreviations and Acronyms
| | AVR | = aortic valve replacement | | BSA | = body surface area | | CABG | = coronary artery bypass grafting | | MI | = myocardial infarction | | MVR | = mitral valve replacement | | OM | = operative mortality | | STS | = Society of Thoracic Surgeons | | STS Database | = Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Surgery Database | | US | = United States |
|
Risk stratification has become an essential element in the practice of cardiac surgery (1). In the field of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), numerous studies have identified the most important patient risk factors and have confirmed the advantage of risk-adjusted results compared with raw mortality statistics (2–6). Unfortunately, outcomes research in valve replacement surgery has been relatively limited.
Using data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Surgery Database (STS Database), we characterized operative outcomes after isolated valve replacement and CABG plus valve surgery. We identified major preoperative predictors of mortality and developed risk models that would accurately estimate operative mortality (OM). We then assessed the performance of these models in a prospective patient population.
|
Methods
|
|---|
The STS Database.
The STS Database was initiated in 1986 and now contains detailed clinical information on more than one million registered patients undergoing cardiac surgery. In total, over 487 academic, private, military and Veterans Affairs hospitals from 47 U.S. states and five Canadian provinces participate.
Participants in the STS Database receive individualized, semi-annual, risk-adjusted surgery outcomes, along with direct comparisons with the aggregate database population. This feedback is used for internal quality improvement efforts and is not publicly released. The mortality risk models are an integral part of the participants’ software, which allows the users to generate risk-adjusted outcomes data locally, compared with the national experience.
Patient population.
The models were developed using data on all patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) either alone or in combination with CABG from January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1997. This included those patients receiving either mechanical or bioprosthetic valve replacement, but excluded those receiving valve repair surgery. In addition, patient records were excluded from the study if they were missing age or gender (<0.1% of records), if they were receiving tricuspid or pulmonary valve surgery or if they were having multivalve replacement surgery. In addition, all patients having a diagnosis of congenital heart disease were excluded. Finally, those undergoing cardiac surgery combined with other cardiac procedures were excluded. The resultant database contains clinical information on 92,536 patients. A total of 49,073 patients received isolated AVR or MVR, and 43,463 patients received combined CABG/valve surgery.
The external validation sample consisted of 51,492 patients in the STS Database who received valve replacement from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 1999. In this group, 25,640 patients received isolated valve replacement, whereas the remaining 25,852 patients underwent combined CABG/valve surgery.
Data definitions.
Operative mortality is defined as 1) all deaths occurring during the hospital period in which the operation was performed; and 2) those deaths occurring after hospital discharge, but within 30 days of the procedure, unless the cause of death is clearly unrelated to the operation. Definitions of risk factors used in this analysis are provided in the STS web site.
Analysis.
Each of the STS "core data set" risk factors were considered for inclusion into the model. Patient demographic data were compared (Table 1), and univariate OM rates for each risk factor were examined. This information, along with clinical evaluation of the risk factors, was used to determine the model variables. We constructed two models—one that included isolated valve procedures (AVR and MVR) and another that included combined (CABG plus valve replacement) procedures.
For modeling purposes, the median value was used to replace missing values for continuous variables, whereas missing categorical values were replaced with the most prevalent value. With these standard assumptions, all patients in the population were included in the modeling process. For each model, stepwise logistic regression was performed to determine those factors that were most significantly associated with OM. In the stepwise process, variables were entered and removed according to whether the Wald p values were <0.10 for entry and <0.01 for retention. Logistic regression models were then developed in this form:
where P is the probability of postoperative death; and X = B0 + B1X1 + B2X2 + ... + BkXk, where k is the number of risk factors in the model; Bi is the constant associated with the ith risk factor; and Xi indicates the status of the ith risk factor for an individual patient.
Assessment of model performance.
Model performance was assessed both internally and externally. The internal approach involved direct comparison of predicted versus observed results within the data on which the model was derived. The c-index, which reflects the ability of a model to discriminate patients who died during the operation from survivors, was calculated to evaluate model discrimination. For model calibration, patients were ordered by their predicted OM and then classified into 10 groups of equal size. Average predicted versus observed OM rates were then compared for each of the groups across the risk spectrum.
We also tested the model in a population separate from the derived population. For this independent data set, we selected registered patients undergoing operation in 1998 or 1999. The screening criteria described earlier were applied to all patients in this database, yielding 25,640 patients in the "isolated valve test set" and 25,852 patients in the "CABG plus valve test set." Average predicted and observed OM rates were then compared for each group. The c-index for the model applied to this population was also calculated.
|
Results
|
|---|
Patient demographic data.
Of the 92,536 patients, 32,968 had AVR; 16,105 had MVR; 32,538 had CABG/AVR; and 10,925 had CABG/MVR. The clinical characteristics of these four patient groups are shown in Table 1. Compared with those receiving combined CABG/valve surgery, those receiving isolated valve procedures (AVR or MVR) were younger and tended to have fewer cardiac risk factors. Patients undergoing MVR were younger, had a smaller body surface area, were more likely to have had previous cardiac surgery and had a higher incidence of congestive heart failure and cardiogenic shock, compared with those receiving AVR.
Patient outcomes.
Outcomes for the four procedural groups are presented in Table 2. Operative mortality was higher in those receiving combined procedures than in those receiving isolated valve surgery. Likewise, OM was higher in those receiving MVR than in those receiving AVR. Higher complication rates and longer postoperative hospital stays were also noted in those receiving combined CABG/valve surgery (vs. isolated valve surgery) and in those receiving mitral (vs. aortic) valve procedures.
Operative mortality risk factors.
Certain preoperative clinical characteristics markedly increased the risk of mortality after valve surgery. Table 3 provides OM rates in specific subsets of patients receiving valve surgery. As indicated previously, our strategy was to build two models—one for isolated valve procedures and one for combined (CABG plus valve replacement) procedures. Tables 4 and 5 show the independent risk factors that emerged for these two models, excluding those factors demonstrating significant interactions. In patients having isolated valve replacement, the factors most strongly associated with an adverse outcome were the need for reoperation, emergency operation and the presence of renal failure (Table 4). These same factors were also the most prominent in the CABG/valve replacement group (Table 5). Although the two models contain similar risk predictors in general, the combined CABG/valve replacement procedure has a number of risk factors traditionally associated with coronary artery disease. In addition, most clinical factors had a similar impact on risk in both AVR and MVR. For the isolated valve model, age was the only risk factor that had a significant interaction with the type of valve replacement, indicating that MVR, but not AVR, is associated with an adverse odds ratio that increases with age. The isolated valve model also included an interaction between emergency/salvage status and age. Emergency/salvage status had less influence on older patients. The CABG/valve model included four risk factor interactions: the risk associated with previous cardiac operation(s), pulmonary hypertension, salvage status and peripheral vascular disease was increased among the MVR group compared with the AVR group. The CABG/valve model also contains an interaction between age and previous cardiac operation(s), indicating that older patients who have had at least one previous cardiac operation have a greater risk of dying compared with younger patients.
Model performance assessment.
Internal assessment
The c-index was 0.766 for the isolated valve model and 0.739 for the CABG/valve replacement model. Figures 1 and 2 compare predicted versus observed results for subgroups across the risk spectrum. Both models demonstrate very good agreement between observed and predicted values.
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1 Observed versus predicted observed mortality for isolated aortic or mitral valve replacement. Data points correspond to decile subgroups of equal size for the 1994 to 1997 data.
|
|
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2 Observed versus predicted observed mortality for coronary artery bypass graft surgery combined with aortic or mitral valve replacement. Data points correspond to decile subgroups of equal size for the 1994 to 1997 data.
|
|
External assessment
The "test set" population consisted of 25,640 patients undergoing isolated AVR or MVR procedures and 25,852 undergoing combined CABG/valve surgery between January 1998 and December 1999. Each patient record in the test set was entered into the appropriate model. The c-index for the isolated valve model was 0.773 and that for the CABG/valve model was 0.730. A measure of calibration was determined by using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic, which was 10.6 (p = 0.225) for the isolated valve models and 12.2 (p = 0.141) for CABG/valve models.
The overall predicted mortality rates for the 1998 to 1999 test set were very similar to the observed mortality rates (Fig. 3 and 4). For the isolated valve model, the overall predicted mortality rate was 4.8%, compared with an observed rate of 4.7%. For the CABG/valve model, the predicted mortality rate was 8.6%, compared with an 8.2% observed mortality rate.
View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3 Observed versus predicted observed mortality for isolated aortic or mitral valve replacement. Data points correspond to decile subgroups of equal size for the 1998 to 1999 data.
|
|
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 4 Observed versus predicted observed mortality for coronary artery bypass graft surgery combined with aortic or mitral valve replacement. Data points correspond to decile subgroups of equal size for the 1998 to 1999 data.
|
|
|
Discussion
|
|---|
The quality of care provided by cardiac surgery programs has traditionally been measured by the OM associated with CABG. The use of statistical models of CABG mortality has become commonplace, allowing sophisticated risk stratification of patients undergoing CABG (2–6).
The results of valve replacement surgery should also be considered an important element in the evaluation of cardiac surgery results. Unfortunately, there have been few national or large regional studies of valve surgery comparable to those of coronary surgery. Accordingly, the risk factors associated with valve surgery are more obscure, and acceptable outcomes are more difficult to define. Risk models have only recently been used to evaluate patients undergoing valve replacement surgery (7,8).
Clinical application.
The use of a national database has obvious value in this context. The STS Database has detailed preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative information on patients undergoing valve replacement surgery in a wide variety of centers throughout the country. The centers include academic, private, military and Veterans Affairs practices, which, in aggregate, should represent a reasonable estimate of the "average" national experience.
The use of this population to develop statistical risk models should serve as a unique benchmark for quality assurance. With the risk models presented in this report, it becomes possible for centers to obtain an objective and reproducible estimate of OM based on national results. It is instructive to illustrate this concept with an example: a given institution seeking to assess its valve surgery OM may enter its patient population into the STS models to generate a predicted OM for each patient. The average predicted mortality (P%) for the population is then calculated. The following statement is warranted: "Based on the accumulated experience of the STS Database, of every 100 patients with comparable risk factors, P would be expected to die after valve replacement surgery." The actual OM for the population should be compared with the predicted OM. If there is no significant difference, it is reasonable to conclude that the results of this institution conform with an accepted national average. If there is a significant difference, it should prompt the institution to investigate the issue more thoroughly. The STS holds the position that differences between predicted and actual OM rates do not invariably signal substandard care, but such differences should be a cause for more detailed examination (9).
Comparison with previous studies.
The initial attempt to model valve OM using the STS Database was begun five years ago (7). This effort focused on the population from 1986 to 1995, which, in retrospect, constitutes a more heterogeneous group of patients undergoing a broader array of valve procedures. Furthermore, data gathered in the 1980s were not subject to the more rigorous screening criteria imposed in the 1990s, so that a significant portion of the 1986 to 1995 population may contain information that does meet current quality standards. In addition, the STS "core data set" variables had not been developed, so the model risk factors include several variables that are not now considered necessary for collection. These early models served a useful purpose and provided a necessary step in the evolution of our outcomes analyses; however, the present models represent a clear improvement by obviating most of the aforementioned shortcomings.
The pioneering work of the Veterans Affairs Cardiac Surgery Consultants Committee has been particularly important in this field (5,8). The scientific development and the practical application of risk models by this organization have been exemplary, but their population, by design, is restricted to Veterans Affairs centers. The select population of Veterans Affairs hospitals may well preclude application of their models on a broader scale.
Study limitations.
Statistical risk models are valuable as quality assurance tools and as aids to medical decision making; however, one should not place an undue premium on their value. Models should not dictate therapy, nor should they arbitrarily brand a practice as "acceptable" or "substandard." They are designed to serve as aids, not to serve as the answer. Results of risk models should be generally considered as one would regard the results of a laboratory test—one piece of the puzzle that should be evaluated in concert with clinical judgment and other more traditional forms of assessment (9–11).
The broad scope of the STS Database suggests that this aggregate experience defines an acceptable standard of care. Although this is a logical conclusion, it may not be true. It is possible that regional geographic differences and select referral patterns are so disparate that it is unreasonable to hold all practices to a single standard. This issue is presently under investigation by the STS Database Committee. For now, it may be most appropriate to consider these data as a "national average" rather than a "national standard" (9).
Future investigations.
Operative mortality is certainly the most important and the most easily measured of surgical outcomes, but other outcomes also have a major impact on patient care. We are presently developing models to predict various forms of operative morbidity, with special emphasis on postoperative neurologic dysfunction and the need for prolonged ventilatory support. Models to predict length of hospital stay and cost are also being investigated.
The STS has assisted with several regional and state initiatives to gather and analyze data on a regional level. These studies will be compared with national data to determine whether significant differences exist. At this point, one state has developed a risk model of CABG mortality based solely on its state population. After extensive testing of this "state model," it was found to be essentially identical to the national model. Future efforts along these lines should determine whether the national experience with cardiac surgery should be considered as a standard of care or whether regionalization is necessary to establish fair standards.
Conclusions.
These STS risk models fill a void in our ability to assess surgical outcomes associated with valve replacement surgery. They allow one to determine the net impact of all important preoperative risk factors to predict the probability of postoperative mortality in patients undergoing valve surgery. This information, in turn, can be used as a benchmark to compare risk-stratified patient groups with a large multi-institutional experience that approximates a national standard of care.
|
References
|
|---|
1. Kouchoukos NT, Ebert PA, Grover FL, Lindesmith GG. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Risk Factors for Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 1988;45:348–349[Abstract]
2. Edwards FH, Clark RE, Schwartz M. Coronary artery bypass grafting: the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 1994;57:12–19[Abstract]
3. Edwards FH, Grover FL, Shroyer AL, Schwartz M, Bero J. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Surgery Database: current risk assessment. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;63:903–908[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Shroyer AL, Grover FL, Edwards FH. 1995 Coronary artery bypass risk model: the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac National Database. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;65:879–884[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Hammermeister KE, Johnson R, Marshall G, Grover FL. Continuous assessment and improvement in quality of care: a model from the Department of Veterans Affairs Cardiac Surgery. Ann Surg. 1994;219:281–290[Medline]
6. Hannan EL, Kilburn H Jr, O’Donnell JF, et al. Adult open heart surgery in New York State: an analysis of risk factors and hospital mortality rates. JAMA. 1990;264:2768–2772[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Jamieson WRE, Edwards FH, Bero J, Clark RE, Grover FL. Cardiac valve replacement surgery: the Society of Thoracic Surgeons national database experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;67:943–951[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Grover FL, Johnson RJ, Shroyer AL, Marshall G, Hammermeister KE. The Veterans Affairs continuous improvement in cardiac surgery study. Ann Thorac Surg. 1994;58:1845–1851[Abstract]
9. Edwards FH, Clark RE, Schwartz M. Practical considerations in the management of large multi-institutional databases. Ann Thorac Surg. 1994;58:1841–1844[Abstract]
10. Ferraris V. Risk stratification and comorbidity. Edmunds LH. Cardiac Surgery in the Adult. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1997. p. 165–190
11. Clark RE. The STS Cardiac Surgery National Database: an update. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;59:1376–1381[Abstract/Free Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
E. E. Coglianese and R. Davidoff
Predicting Outcome in Patients With Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis
Circulation,
July 7, 2009;
120(1):
9 - 11.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. M. O'Brien, D. M. Shahian, G. Filardo, V. A. Ferraris, C. K. Haan, J. B. Rich, S.-L. T. Normand, E. R. DeLong, C. M. Shewan, R. S. Dokholyan, et al.
The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 2--isolated valve surgery.
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
July 1, 2009;
88(1 Suppl):
S23 - S42.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. M. Shahian, S. M. O'Brien, G. Filardo, V. A. Ferraris, C. K. Haan, J. B. Rich, S.-L. T. Normand, E. R. DeLong, C. M. Shewan, R. S. Dokholyan, et al.
The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 3--valve plus coronary artery bypass grafting surgery.
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
July 1, 2009;
88(1 Suppl):
S43 - S62.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Zajarias and A. G. Cribier
Outcomes and Safety of Percutaneous Aortic Valve Replacement
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
May 19, 2009;
53(20):
1829 - 1836.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. R. Meyer, W. Y. Szeto, J. G.T. Augoustides, R. J. Morris, W. J. Vernick, D. Paschal, J. Fox, and W. C. Hargrove III
Reoperative mitral valve surgery by the port access minithoracotomy approach is safe and effective.
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
May 1, 2009;
87(5):
1426 - 1430.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. T. Billings IV, S. K. Kodali, and J. S. Shanewise
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Anesthetic Considerations
Anesth. Analg.,
May 1, 2009;
108(5):
1453 - 1462.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. Brown, S. M. O'Brien, C. Wu, J. A. H. Sikora, B. P. Griffith, and J. S. Gammie
Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database.
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.,
January 1, 2009;
137(1):
82 - 90.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Vahanian, B. Iung, L. Piérard, R. Dion, and J. Pepper
CHAPTER 21 Valvular Heart Disease
ESC Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine,
January 1, 2009;
2(1):
med-9780199566990-chapter - med-9780199566990-chapter.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Filsoufi, J. Chikwe, J. G. Castillo, P. B. Rahmanian, J. Vassalotti, and D. H. Adams
Prosthesis type has minimal impact on survival after valve surgery in patients with moderate to end-stage renal failure
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant.,
November 1, 2008;
23(11):
3613 - 3621.
[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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. S. Gammie, L. S. Krowsoski, J. M. Brown, P. N. Odonkor, C. A. Young, M. J. Santos, J. S. Gottdiener, and B. P. Griffith
Aortic Valve Bypass Surgery: Midterm Clinical Outcomes in a High-Risk Aortic Stenosis Population
Circulation,
September 30, 2008;
118(14):
1460 - 1466.
[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.
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. T.L. Chiam and C. E. Ruiz
Percutaneous Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Assessing Results, Judging Outcomes, and Planning Trials: The Interventionalist Perspective
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv.,
August 1, 2008;
1(4):
341 - 350.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Vahanian, O. R. Alfieri, N. Al-Attar, M. J. Antunes, J. Bax, B. Cormier, A. Cribier, P. De Jaegere, G. Fournial, A. P. Kappetein, et al.
Transcatheter valve implantation for patients with aortic stenosis: a position statement from the European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), in collaboration with the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI).
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.,
July 1, 2008;
34(1):
1 - 8.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. K. Song, J. D. Grab, S. M. O'Brien, K. F. Welke, F. Edwards, and R. M. Ungerleider
Gender Differences in Mortality After Mitral Valve Operation: Evidence for Higher Mortality in Perimenopausal Women
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
June 1, 2008;
85(6):
2040 - 2045.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Vahanian, O. Alfieri, N. Al-Attar, M. Antunes, J. Bax, B. Cormier, A. Cribier, P. De Jaegere, G. Fournial, A. P. Kappetein, et al.
Transcatheter valve implantation for patients with aortic stenosis: a position statement from the European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), in collaboration with the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)
Eur. Heart J.,
June 1, 2008;
29(11):
1463 - 1470.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. M. Fedoruk, H. Wang, M. R. Conaway, I. L. Kron, and K. C. Johnston
Statin Therapy Improves Outcomes After Valvular Heart Surgery
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
May 1, 2008;
85(5):
1521 - 1526.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Nozohoor, J. Nilsson, C. Luhrs, A. Roijer, and J. Sjogren
Influence of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Diastolic Heart Failure After Aortic Valve Replacement
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
April 1, 2008;
85(4):
1310 - 1317.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Iung
Management of the elderly patient with aortic stenosis
Heart,
April 1, 2008;
94(4):
519 - 524.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. K. Rosengart, T. Feldman, M. A. Borger, T. A. Vassiliades Jr, A. M. Gillinov, K. J. Hoercher, A. Vahanian, R. O. Bonow, and W. O'Neill
Percutaneous and Minimally Invasive Valve Procedures: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, Council on Clinical Cardiology, Functional Genomics and Translational Biology Interdisciplinary Working Group, and Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Working Group
Circulation,
April 1, 2008;
117(13):
1750 - 1767.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. van Gameren, A. P. Kappetein, E. W. Steyerberg, A. C. Venema, E. A.J. Berenschot, E. L. Hannan, A. J.J.C. Bogers, and J. J.M. Takkenberg
Do We Need Separate Risk Stratification Models for Hospital Mortality After Heart Valve Surgery?
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
March 1, 2008;
85(3):
921 - 930.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. H. Mehta, J. D. Grab, S. M. O'Brien, D. D. Glower, C. K. Haan, J. S. Gammie, E. D. Peterson, and on Behalf of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Nati
Clinical Characteristics and In-Hospital Outcomes of Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Insights From the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Database
Circulation,
February 19, 2008;
117(7):
876 - 885.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. D. Desai and G. T. Christakis
Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: Stented Pericardial and Porcine Valves
Card. Surg. Adult,
January 1, 2008;
3(2008):
857 - 894.
[Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Gudbjartsson, T. Absi, and S. Aranki
Mitral Valve Replacement
Card. Surg. Adult,
January 1, 2008;
3(2008):
1031 - 1068.
[Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Feldman and M. B. Leon
Prospects for Percutaneous Valve Therapies
Circulation,
December 11, 2007;
116(24):
2866 - 2877.
[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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. S. Kalkat, M.-B. Edwards, K. M. Taylor, and R. S. Bonser
Composite Aortic Valve Graft Replacement: Mortality Outcomes in a National Registry
Circulation,
September 11, 2007;
116(11_suppl):
I-301 - I-306.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. L. Grover, J. E. Mayer Jr, N. Kouchoukos, R. Guyton, F. Edwards, and J. Bavaria
Letter by Grover et al Regarding Article, "Percutaneous Implantation of the CoreValve Self-Expanding Valve Prosthesis in High-Risk Patients With Aortic Valve Disease: The Siegburg First-in-Man Study"
Circulation,
June 5, 2007;
115(22):
e612 - e612.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. B. Vanky, E. Hakanson, and R. Svedjeholm
Long-Term Consequences of Postoperative Heart Failure After Surgery for Aortic Stenosis Compared With Coronary Surgery
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
June 1, 2007;
83(6):
2036 - 2043.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Kuduvalli, A. D. Grayson, J. Au, G. Grotte, B. Bridgewater, B. M. Fabri, and on behalf of the North West Quality Improvement Pr
A multi-centre additive and logistic risk model for in-hospital mortality following aortic valve replacement
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.,
April 1, 2007;
31(4):
607 - 613.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. M. Shahian, F. H. Edwards, V. A. Ferraris, C. K. Haan, J. B. Rich, S.-L. T. Normand, E. R. DeLong, S. M. O'Brien, C. M. Shewan, R. S. Dokholyan, et al.
Quality Measurement in Adult Cardiac Surgery: Part 1--Conceptual Framework and Measure Selection
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
April 1, 2007;
83(4_Supplement):
S3 - S12.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. L. Hannan, C. Wu, E. V. Bennett, R. E. Carlson, A. T. Culliford, J. P. Gold, R. S.D. Higgins, C. R. Smith, and R. H. Jones
Risk Index for Predicting In-Hospital Mortality for Cardiac Valve Surgery
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
March 1, 2007;
83(3):
921 - 929.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. S. Gammie, S. M. O'Brien, B. P. Griffith, T. B. Ferguson, and E. D. Peterson
Influence of Hospital Procedural Volume on Care Process and Mortality for Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery for Mitral Regurgitation
Circulation,
February 20, 2007;
115(7):
881 - 887.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Boku, M. Masuda, M. Eto, T. Nishida, S. Morita, and R. Tominaga
Risk Evaluation and Midterm Outcome of Cardiac Surgery in Patients on Dialysis
Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann,
February 1, 2007;
15(1):
19 - 23.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Authors/Task Force Members, A. Vahanian, H. Baumgartner, J. Bax, E. Butchart, R. Dion, G. Filippatos, F. Flachskampf, R. Hall, B. Iung, et al.
Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease: The Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology
Eur. Heart J.,
January 26, 2007;
(2007)
ehl428v1.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. H. Mehta, J. D. Grab, S. M. O'Brien, C. R. Bridges, J. S. Gammie, C. K. Haan, T. B. Ferguson, E. D. Peterson, and for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Card
Bedside Tool for Predicting the Risk of Postoperative Dialysis in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery
Circulation,
November 21, 2006;
114(21):
2208 - 2216.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Florath, A. Albert, W. Hassanein, B. Arnrich, U. Rosendahl, I. C. Ennker, and J. Ennker
Current determinants of 30-day and 3-month mortality in over 2000 aortic valve replacements: impact of routine laboratory parameters
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.,
November 1, 2006;
30(5):
716 - 721.
[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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 Practice Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: Executive Summary: 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):
598 - 675.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. S. Gammie, J. W. Brown, J. M. Brown, R. S. Poston, R. N. Pierson III, P. N. Odonkor, C. S. White, J. S. Gottdiener, and B. P. Griffith
Aortic valve bypass for the high-risk patient with aortic stenosis.
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
May 1, 2006;
81(5):
1605 - 1610.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Cladellas, J. Bruguera, J. Comin, J. Vila, E. de Jaime, J. Marti, and M. Gomez
Is pre-operative anaemia a risk marker for in-hospital mortality and morbidity after valve replacement?
Eur. Heart J.,
May 1, 2006;
27(9):
1093 - 1099.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Chan, W.R. E. Jamieson, A. G. Fleisher, D. Denmark, F. Chan, and E. Germann
Valve Replacement Surgery in End-Stage Renal Failure: Mechanical Prostheses Versus Bioprostheses
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
March 1, 2006;
81(3):
857 - 862.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Iung, A. Cachier, G. Baron, D. Messika-Zeitoun, F. Delahaye, P. Tornos, C. Gohlke-Barwolf, E. Boersma, P. Ravaud, and A. Vahanian
Decision-making in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis: why are so many denied surgery?
Eur. Heart J.,
December 2, 2005;
26(24):
2714 - 2720.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. S. Gammie, S. M. O'Brien, B. P. Griffith, and E. D. Peterson
Surgical Treatment of Mitral Valve Endocarditis in North America
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
December 1, 2005;
80(6):
2199 - 2204.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. R. Nowicki
What is the Future of Mortality Prediction Models in Heart Valve Surgery?
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
August 1, 2005;
80(2):
396 - 398.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Jin, G. L. Grunkemeier, A. Starr, and Providence Health System Cardiovascular Study Grou
Validation and Refinement of Mortality Risk Models for Heart Valve Surgery
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
August 1, 2005;
80(2):
471 - 479.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Ambler, R. Z. Omar, P. Royston, R. Kinsman, B. E. Keogh, and K. M. Taylor
Generic, Simple Risk Stratification Model for Heart Valve Surgery
Circulation,
July 12, 2005;
112(2):
224 - 231.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Bekeredjian and P. A. Grayburn
Valvular Heart Disease: Aortic Regurgitation
Circulation,
July 5, 2005;
112(1):
125 - 134.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. K. Toumpoulis, C. E. Anagnostopoulos, S. K. Toumpoulis, J. J. DeRose Jr, and D. G. Swistel
EuroSCORE Predicts Long-Term Mortality After Heart Valve Surgery
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
June 1, 2005;
79(6):
1902 - 1908.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. H. Edwards, V. A. Ferraris, D. M. Shahian, E. Peterson, A. P. Furnary, C. K. Haan, and C. R. Bridges
Gender-Specific Practice Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Perioperative Management
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
June 1, 2005;
79(6):
2189 - 2194.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. A. Vassiliades Jr, P. C. Block, L. H. Cohn, D. H. Adams, J. S. Borer, T. Feldman, D. R. Holmes, W. K. Laskey, B. W. Lytle, M. J. Mack, et al.
The Clinical Development of Percutaneous Heart Valve Technology: A Position Statement of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA)
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
May 3, 2005;
45(9):
1554 - 1560.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) a, T. A. Vassiliades Jr, P. C. Block, L. H. Cohn, D. H. Adams, J. S. Borer, T. Feldman, D. R. Holmes, W. K. Laskey, B. W. Lytle, et al.
The clinical development of percutaneous heart valve technology: A position statement of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI)
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.,
May 1, 2005;
129(5):
970 - 976.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. A. Vassiliades Jr, P. C. Block, L. H. Cohn, D. H. Adams, J. S. Borer, T. Feldman, D. R. Holmes, W. K. Laskey, B. W. Lytle, M. J. Mack, et al.
The Clinical Development of Percutaneous Heart Valve Technology: A Position Statement of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI)
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
May 1, 2005;
79(5):
1812 - 1818.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. M. Ho, F. A. Masoudi, J. A. Spertus, P. N. Peterson, A. L. Shroyer, M. McCarthy Jr, F. L. Grover, K. E. Hammermeister, and J. S. Rumsfeld
Depression Predicts Mortality Following Cardiac Valve Surgery
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
April 1, 2005;
79(4):
1255 - 1259.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. E. Taylor, S. O'Brien, F. H. Edwards, E. D. Peterson, and C. R. Bridges
Relationship Between Race and Mortality and Morbidity After Valve Replacement Surgery
Circulation,
March 15, 2005;
111(10):
1305 - 1312.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. G. Fuster, J. A. M. Argudo, O. G. Albarova, F. H. Sos, S. C. Lopez, M. B. Codoner, J. A. B. Minano, and I. R. Albarran
Patient-prosthesis mismatch in aortic valve replacement: really tolerable?
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.,
March 1, 2005;
27(3):
441 - 449.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. G. Byrne, M. Leacche, D. Unic, J. D. Rawn, D. I. Simon, C. D. Rogers, and L. H. Cohn
Staged initial percutaneous coronary intervention followed by valve surgery ("hybrid approach") for patients with complex coronary and valve disease
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
January 4, 2005;
45(1):
14 - 18.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Lim, J. L. Monin, M. Monchi, J. Garot, A. Pasquet, L. Hittinger, J. L. Vanoverschelde, A. Carayon, and P. Gueret
Predictors of outcome in patients with severe aortic stenosis and normal left ventricular function: role of B-type natriuretic peptide
Eur. Heart J.,
November 2, 2004;
25(22):
2048 - 2053.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. M. Shahian, E. H. Blackstone, F. H. Edwards, F. L. Grover, G. L. Grunkemeier, D. C. Naftel, S. A.M. Nashef, W. C. Nugent, and E. D. Peterson
Cardiac Surgery Risk Models: A Position Article
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
November 1, 2004;
78(5):
1868 - 1877.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Enriquez-Sarano and A. J. Tajik
Aortic Regurgitation
N. Engl. J. Med.,
October 7, 2004;
351(15):
1539 - 1546.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Langer, D. Aicher, A. Kissinger, O. Wendler, H. Lausberg, R. Fries, and H.-J. Schafers
Aortic Valve Repair Using a Differentiated Surgical Strategy
Circulation,
September 14, 2004;
110(11_suppl_1):
II-67 - II-73.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. S. Collins, A. Evangelista, C. A. Nienaber, E. Bossone, J. Fang, J. V. Cooper, D. E. Smith, P. T. O'Gara, T. Myrmel, D. Gilon, et al.
Differences in Clinical Presentation, Management, and Outcomes of Acute Type A Aortic Dissection in Patients With and Without Previous Cardiac Surgery
Circulation,
September 14, 2004;
110(11_suppl_1):
II-237 - II-242.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. K. Haan, C. I. Cabral, D. A. Conetta, L. P. Coombs, and F. H. Edwards
Selecting patients with mitral regurgitation and left ventricular dysfunction for isolated mitral valve surgery
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
September 1, 2004;
78(3):
820 - 825.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. H. Rahimtoola
The year in valvular heart disease
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
February 4, 2004;
43(3):
491 - 504.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. F. Northrup III, R. W. Emery, D. M. Nicoloff, T. J. Lillehei, A. R. Holter, and D. P. Blake
Opposite trends in coronary artery and valve surgery in a large multisurgeon practice, 1979-1999
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
February 1, 2004;
77(2):
488 - 495.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. C. Gardner, G. K. Grunwald, J. S. Rumsfeld, J. C. Cleveland Jr, L. M. Schooley, D. Gao, F. L. Grover, G. O. McDonald, and A. L. Shroyer
Comparison of short-term mortality risk factors for valve replacement versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
February 1, 2004;
77(2):
549 - 556.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. Berkun, A. Elami, K. Meir, D. Mevorach, and Y. Naparstek
Increased morbidity and mortality in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome undergoing valve replacement surgery
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.,
February 1, 2004;
127(2):
414 - 420.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. A. Hopkins
Aortic valve leaflet sparing and salvage surgery: evolution of techniques for aortic root reconstruction
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.,
December 1, 2003;
24(6):
886 - 897.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. S. Rumsfeld
Valve surgery in the elderly: A question of quality (of life)?
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
October 1, 2003;
42(7):
1215 - 1217.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. A. Cooper, W. Brinkman, R. J. Petersen, and R. A. Guyton
Impact of renal disease in cardiovascular surgery: emphasis on the African-American patient
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
October 1, 2003;
76(4):
S1370 - 1376.
[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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Florath, U. P. Rosendahl, A. Mortasawi, S. F. Bauer, F. Dalladaku, I. C. Ennker, and J. C. Ennker
Current determinants of operative mortality in 1400 patients requiring aortic valve replacement
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
July 1, 2003;
76(1):
75 - 83.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Iung, G. Baron, E. G. Butchart, F. Delahaye, C. Gohlke-Barwolf, O. W. Levang, P. Tornos, J.-L. Vanoverschelde, F. Vermeer, E. Boersma, et al.
A prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: The Euro Heart Survey on Valvular Heart Disease
Eur. Heart J.,
July 1, 2003;
24(13):
1231 - 1243.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Sharony, E. A. Grossi, P. C. Saunders, C. F. Schwartz, G. B. Ciuffo, F. G. Baumann, J. Delianides, R. M. Applebaum, G. H. Ribakove, A. T. Culliford,, et al.
Aortic valve replacement in patients with impaired ventricular function
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
June 1, 2003;
75(6):
1808 - 1814.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. C. Miller
Ischemic mitral regurgitation redux--to repair or to replace?
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.,
March 1, 2003;
125(90030):
S58 - 61.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. D. Desai and G. T. Christakis
Stented Mechanical/Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement
Card. Surg. Adult,
January 1, 2003;
2(2003):
825 - 856.
[Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Gudbjartsson, S. Aranki, and L. H. Cohn
Mechanical/Bioprosthetic Mitral Valve Replacement
Card. Surg. Adult,
January 1, 2003;
2(2003):
951 - 986.
[Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. H. Mehta, K. A. Eagle, L. P. Coombs, E. D. Peterson, F. H. Edwards, F. D. Pagani, G. M. Deeb, S. F. Bolling, and R. L. Prager
Influence of age on outcomes in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
November 1, 2002;
74(5):
1459 - 1467.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. T. Brinkman, W. H. Williams, R. A. Guyton, E. L. Jones, and J. M. Craver
Valve replacement in patients on chronic renal dialysis: implications for valve prosthesis selection
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
July 1, 2002;
74(1):
37 - 42.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. L. Grover, J. C. Cleveland Jr, and L. W. Shroyer
Quality Improvement in Cardiac Care
Arch Surg,
January 1, 2002;
137(1):
28 - 36.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. C. Miller
Ischemic mitral regurgitation redux--To repair or to replace?
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.,
December 1, 2001;
122(6):
1059 - 1062.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
Top
Abstract
Methods