Mechanical versus biological aortic valve replacement strategies.

Reineke, David Christian; Gisler, Fabian; Englberger, Lars; Carrel, Thierry (2016). Mechanical versus biological aortic valve replacement strategies. Expert review of cardiovascular therapy, 14(4), pp. 423-430. Taylor & Francis 10.1586/14779072.2016.1133293

Preview	Text 14779072.2016.pdf - Accepted Version Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (632kB) | Preview
	Text 14779072.2016.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (970kB)

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the most frequently performed procedure in valve surgery. The controversy about the optimal choice of the prosthetic valve is as old as the technique itself. Currently there is no perfect valve substitute available. The main challenge is to choose between mechanical and biological prosthetic valves. Biological valves include pericardial (bovine, porcine or equine) and native porcine bioprostheses designed in stented or stentless versions. Homografts and pulmonary autografts are reserved for special indications and will not be discussed in detail in this review. We will focus on the decision making between artificial biological and mechanical prostheses, respectively. The first part of this article reviews guideline recommendations concerning the choice of aortic prostheses in different clinical situations while the second part is focused on novel strategies in the treatment of patients with aortic valve pathology.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

799 since deposited on 04 Feb 2016
73 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item