Mechanische oder biologische Klappenprothesen

Auswahl des Implantattyps und Beratung des Patienten
Im Brennpunkt
  • 25 Downloads

Mechanical or biological valve prostheses

Selection of implant type and counseling of patients

Notes

Interessenkonflikt

M. Misfeld gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Akins CW, Miller DC, Turina MI et al (2008) Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 135:732–738CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brennan JM, Edwards FH, Zhao Y et al (2013) Long-term safety and effectivness of mechanical versus biological aortic valve prostheses in older patients. Results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adults Cardiac Surgery National Database. Circulation 127:1647–1665CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Falk V, Baumgartner H, Bax JJ et al (2017) 2017 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 52:616–664CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fujita B, Ensminger S, Bauer T et al (2017) Trends in practice and outcome from 2011 to 2015 for surgical aortic valve replacement: an update from the German Aortic Valve Registry on 42,776 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezx408 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO et al (2017) 2017 AHA/ACC focused update oft he 2014 AHA/ACC guidleines fort he management of patients with valvular heart disease. A report oft he American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 135:e1159–e1195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HerzzentrumUniversitätsklinik für HerzchirurgieLeipzigDeutschland

Personalised recommendations