1986
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1020421 View full text |Buy / Rent full text
|
|

Abstract: From August 1977 through August 1984, 239 patients underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the Ionescu-Shiley pericardial valve. Isolated AVR was performed in 112 patients and associated cardiac surgery in 127 patients (53.1%). One hundred twenty-eight patients were males and 111 females, with an average age of 50.6 years (range 15 to 78 years). There were 24 hospital deaths (10%) and 15 late deaths (8.9%). The expected 100 months survival rate was 82.8 +/- 5.5 (91.3 +/- 5.6% for isolated AVR, and 75 +/-… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance
Select...
3
2
1
4
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Recognizing the limitations imposed by the retrospective nature of their analysis, the authors concluded the article with a recommendation to use ASA alone routinely after AVR. Similar conclusions were reached by investigators in Spain [40,41]. Likewise, in a retrospective analysis of 195 patients who had undergone bioprosthetic AVR, Moinuddeen et al found no significant differences in rates of cerebral ischemic events (2.8% vs 2.6%) or bleeding complications (9.2% in both groups) among patients treated with warfarin versus patients treated with ASA alone for the first 3 postoperative months [42].…”
Section: Literature Reviewsupporting
See 1 more Smart Citation
Create an account to read the remaining citation statements from this report. You will also get access to:
  • Search over 1.2b+ citation statments to see what is being said about any topic in the research literature
  • Advanced Search to find publications that support or contrast your research
  • Citation reports and visualizations to easily see what publications are saying about each other
  • Browser extension to see Smart Citations wherever you read research
  • Dashboards to evaluate and keep track of groups of publications
  • Alerts to stay on top of citations as they happen
  • Automated reference checks to make sure you are citing reliable research in your manuscripts
  • 7 day free preview of our premium features.

Trusted by researchers and organizations around the world

Over 130,000 students researchers, and industry experts at use scite

See what students are saying

rupbmjkragerfmgwileyiopcupepmcmbcthiemesagefrontiersapsiucrarxivemeralduhksmucshluniversity-of-gavle
“…Recognizing the limitations imposed by the retrospective nature of their analysis, the authors concluded the article with a recommendation to use ASA alone routinely after AVR. Similar conclusions were reached by investigators in Spain [40,41]. Likewise, in a retrospective analysis of 195 patients who had undergone bioprosthetic AVR, Moinuddeen et al found no significant differences in rates of cerebral ischemic events (2.8% vs 2.6%) or bleeding complications (9.2% in both groups) among patients treated with warfarin versus patients treated with ASA alone for the first 3 postoperative months [42].…”
Section: Literature Reviewsupporting
“…A few retrospective studies and two randomized trials have examined the effects of various regimens on the incidence of postoperative thromboembolisms and hemorrhages after AVR with bioprostheses [22,[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]. Heras et al observed an inordinately high rate of early thromboembolic events in patients who were not anticoagulated, particularly after MVR in the first 10 days postoperatively [22].…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
“…Babin-Ebell et al 11 and Joyce and Nelson 30 found no benefit in early warfarin therapy compared with ASA and concluded that standard anticoagulation did not seem to be beneficial. Authors of 4 retrospective studies 9,[31][32][33] suggested the use of ASA therapy alone without short-term anticoagulation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
“…The safety and efficacy of various antithrombotic regimens after bioprosthetic AVR has been examined in only 2 small randomized trials [13,14] and a few observational studies [9,11,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. While the rates of TE and MB in patients treated with VKA versus ASA were similar, these studies were underpowered and the validity of their results is limited by several confounding factors.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning