Page 57 - Read Online

Perezgrovas-Olaria et al. Vessel Plus 2023;7:10 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1209.2022.54 Page 11 of 11

2022;43:561-632. DOI
4. Gaudino M, Lau C, Munjal M, Avgerinos D, Girardi LN. Contemporary outcomes of surgery for aortic root aneurysms: a propensity-
matched comparison of valve-sparing and composite valve graft replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015;150:1120-9.e1. DOI
PubMed
5. Head SJ, Çelik M, Kappetein AP. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J 2017;38:2183-91. DOI
PubMed
6. Head SJ, Kappetein AP. Aortic valve replacement in younger adults: a biological valve is not the logical choice. Eur Heart J
2016;37:2668-70. DOI
7. Girardi LN. Composite root replacement with a mechanical conduit. Oper Tech Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008;13:148-60. DOI
8. Lau C, Gaudino M, Iannacone EM, et al. Retrograde cerebral perfusion is effective for prolonged circulatory arrest in arch aneurysm
repair. Ann Thorac Surg 2018;105:491-7. DOI
9. Kouchoukos NT, Karp RB. Resection of ascending aortic aneurysm and replacement of aortic valve. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
1981;81:142-3. PubMed
10. Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc 1999;94:496-509. DOI
11. Dunning J, Gao H, Chambers J, et al. Aortic valve surgery: marked increases in volume and significant decreases in mechanical valve
use-an analysis of 41,227 patients over 5 years from the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland National
database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011;142:776-782.e3. DOI
12. Siregar S, de Heer F, Groenwold RH, et al. Trends and outcomes of valve surgery: 16-year results of Netherlands Cardiac Surgery
National Database. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014;46:386-97; discussion 397. DOI
13. Isaacs AJ, Shuhaiber J, Salemi A, Isom OW, Sedrakyan A. National trends in utilization and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical
versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015;149:1262-9.e3. DOI PubMed
14. Wright JN, Vazquez SR, Kim K, Jones AE, Witt DM. Assessing patient preferences for switching from warfarin to direct oral
anticoagulants. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2019;48:596-602. DOI
15. Glaser N, Jackson V, Holzmann MJ, Franco-Cereceda A, Sartipy U. Aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs. biological
prostheses in patients aged 50-69 years. Eur Heart J 2016;37:2658-67. DOI PubMed
16. Brown ML, Schaff HV, Lahr BD, et al. Aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70 years: improved outcome with mechanical
versus biologic prostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008;135:878-84; discussion 884. DOI
17. Svensson LG, Pillai ST, Rajeswaran J, et al. Long-term survival, valve durability, and reoperation for 4 aortic root procedures
combined with ascending aorta replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016;151:764-774.e4. DOI PubMed PMC
18. Etz CD, Girrbach FF, von Aspern K, et al. Longevity after aortic root replacement: is the mechanically valved conduit really the gold
standard for quinquagenarians? Circulation 2013;128:S253-62. DOI
19. Kytö V, Sipilä J, Ahtela E, Rautava P, Gunn J. Mechanical versus biologic prostheses for surgical aortic valve replacement in patients
aged 50 to 70. Ann Thorac Surg 2020;110:102-10. DOI PubMed
20. Pantaleo A, Murana G, Di Marco L, et al. Biological versus mechanical Bentall procedure for aortic root replacement: a propensity
score analysis of a consecutive series of 1112 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2017;52:143-9. DOI