1991
DOI: 10.1016/0003-4975(91)91343-t
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Aortic valve replacement with omniscience and omnicarbon valves

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The 1998 FDA objective performance criteria for the mechanical valve patient population for TE averages 5 . The linearized rates of TE reported in the mechanical valve literature range from 0.6% to 3.5% per patient‐year, 2–9,20–23 whereas the linearized rates of TE for tissue valves range from 0.6% to 3.9% per patient‐year 11,14,15,17,19,22 …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The 1998 FDA objective performance criteria for the mechanical valve patient population for TE averages 5 . The linearized rates of TE reported in the mechanical valve literature range from 0.6% to 3.5% per patient‐year, 2–9,20–23 whereas the linearized rates of TE for tissue valves range from 0.6% to 3.9% per patient‐year 11,14,15,17,19,22 …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This review demonstrated that mechanical and tissue valves in both aortic and mitral positions have equivalent ranges for TE (0.6%–3.5%/patient‐year and 0.6%–3.9%/patient‐year, respectively) 2–9,11,14,15,17,19,20–22 . A possible explanation for this is that as tissue valves deteriorate they often demonstrate calcification, ulcerations, and thrombus, which may cause TE.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%