The Online Collection
 
Publication:
Surgical Technology International XV - Cardiovascular Surgery
Article title:
Advanced Technologies for Cardiac Valvular Replacement, Transcatheter Innovations and Reconstructive Surgery

Contents:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

»

References

 

1.Jamieson WRE. Cardiac-valve replacement surgery: Prostheses and technological considerations. Surgical Technology International III. Eds., Z. Szabo, M.D. Kerstein J.E Lewis, pp 407-419, 1994, Universal Medical Press, San Francisco.
2.Jamieson WRE, Lichtenstein SV. Cardiac valvular replacement devices¾residual problems and innovative investigative technologies.Surgical Technology International VII. Eds., Z. Szabo, J.E Lewis, G.A. Fantini, pp 229-248, 1998, Universal Medical Press, San Francisco.
3.Jamieson WRE. Effective current and advanced prostheses for cardiac valvular replacement and reconstructive surgery. Surgical Technology International X. Eds. Z. Szabo, J.E. Lewis, G A. Fantini, pp121-149, 2002, Universal Medical Press, San Francisco.
4.Baim DS. Percutaneous therapies for valvular heart disease. Intervent Card Rounds 2005;3(1):1-6
5.Edmunds LH Jr, Clark RE, Cohn LH, et al. Guidelines for reporting morbidity and mortality after cardiac valvular operations. Ad Hoc Liason Committee for Standardizing Definitions of Prosthetic Heart Valve Morbidity of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1996;112: 708-11.
6.Bonow RO, Carabello B, de Leon AC, et al. ACC/AHA 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 (Committee on Management of Patients with Valvular Heart Disease). J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;32:1486-588.
7.Jamieson WRE, Cartier PC*, Primary Panel Members: Allard M, Boutin C, Burwash IG, et al. Canadian Cardiovascular Society Consensus. Surgical Management of Valvular Heart Disease. Can J Cardiol 2004;20(Suppl E):7E-120E (*Deceased).
8.Yun KL, Sintek CF, Miller DC, Pfeffer TA, et al. Randomized trial comparing partial versus complete chordal-sparing mitral valve replacement: effects on left ventricular volume and function. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2002;123(4): 707-14.
9.Jamieson WRE, von Lipinski O, Miyagishima RT, et al. Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses assessed by composites of complications to 15 years after mitral valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005:129;1301-8.
10.Chan V, Jamieson WRE, Germann E, et al. Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses assessed by composites of complications to 15 years after aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006:131; 1267-73.
11.Prasongsukarn K, Jamieson WRE, Lichtenstein SV. Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses in age group 61-70 years. J Heart Valve Dis 2005;14:501-11.
12.Jamieson WRE. Choices of cardiac valvular substitutes. In: Treasure T, Keogh B, Pagano D, Hunt I, (eds), The evidence for cardiothoracic surgery. United Kingdom:TFM Publishing; pp 201-20, 2004.
13.Moffat-Bruce SD, Jamieson WRE. Long-term performance of prosthesis in mitral valve replacement. J Cardiovasc Surg 2004;45(5): 427-47.
14.Jamieson WRE, Burr LH, Miyagishima RT, et al. Actuarial versus actual freedom from structural valve deterioration with the Carpentier-Edwards porcine bioprostheses. Can J Cardiol 1999;15(9):973-8.
15.Santini F, Dyke C, Edwards S, et al. Pulmonary autograft versus homograft replacement of the aortic valve: a prospective randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997;113(5):894-9.
16.Carr-White GS, Glennan S, Edwards S, et al. Pulmonary autograft versus aortic homograft for replacement of the aortic valve: results from a subset of a prospective randomized trial. Circ Res 1999;100(19 Suppl): II103-6.
17.Aklog L, Carr-White GS, Birks EJ, et al. Pulmonary autograft versus aortic homograft for aortic valve replacement: interim results from a prospective randomized trial. J Heart Valve Dis 2000;9(2):176-88.
18.Takkenberg JJM, van Herwerden LA, Eijkemans MJ, et al. Evolution of allograft aortic valve replacement over 13 years: results of 275 procedures. Eur J Cardio-Thorac Surg 2002;21(4):683-91; discussion 691.
19.Lund O, Chandrasekaran V, Grocott-Mason R, et al. Primary aortic valve replacement with allografts over twenty-five years: valve-related and procedure-related determinants of outcome. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999;117(1): 77-90; discussion 90-1.
20.Hammermeister K, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, et al. Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial. J Am Col Cardiol 2000;36(4):1152-8.
21.Oxenham H, Bloomfield P, Wheatley DJ, et al. Twenty year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. Heart 2003;89(7):715-21.
22.Koertke H, Minami K, Boethig D, et al. INR self-management permits lower anticoagulation levels after mechanical heart valve replacement. Circ 2003;108 Suppl 1:II75-8.
23.Jamieson WRE, Burr LH, Miyagishima RT, et al. Reoperation for bioprosthetic mitral structural failure: risk assessment. Circ 2003;108 Suppl 1:II98-102.
24.Jamieson WRE, Burr LH, Miyagishima RT, et al. Re-operation for bioprosthetic aortic structural failure¾risk assessment. Eur J Cardio-Thorac Surg 2003;24(6):873-8.
25.Jamieson WRE, Burr LH, Miyagishima RT, et al. Carpentier-Edwards supra annular aortic porcine bioprosthesis: Clinical performance over 20 years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005;130: 994-1000.
26.Jin XY, Zhang ZM, Gibson DG, et al. Effects of valve substitute on changes in left ventricular function and hypertrophy after aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 1996;62(3):683-90.
27.Casabona R, De Paulis R, Zattera GF, et al. Stentless porcine and pericardial valve in aortic position. Ann Thorac Surg 1992; 54(4):681-4.
28.Del Rizzo DF, Abdoh A, Cartier P, et al. The effect of prosthetic valve type on survival after aortic valve surgery. Sem Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999;11(4 Suppl 1):1-8.
29.Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36: 1131-41.
30.Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Cartier PC, et al. Patient-prosthesis mismatch can be predicted at the time of operation. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71(5 Suppl):S265-8.
31.Doss M, Martens S, Wood JP, et al. Performance of stentless versus stented aortic valve bioprostheses in the elderly patient: a prospective randomized trial. Eur J Cardio-Thorac Surg 2003;23(3):299-304.
32.Cohen G, Christakis GT, Joyner CD, et al. Are stentless valves hemodynamically superior to stented valves? A prospective randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;73(3):767-75.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT



The author acknowledges the extensive support of Kevin Shillitto in preparation of this complete monograph, specifically with reference to development of the manuscript and attainment and accuracy of the pictorial presentations. Without his dedicated support to this project, it would not have become a complete reality.