Show simple item record

Comparison of allografts and prosthetic valves when used for emergency aortic valve replacement for active infective endocarditis

dc.contributor.authorLupinetti, Flavian M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLemmer, Jr. , John H.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-04-10T14:36:30Z
dc.date.available2006-04-10T14:36:30Z
dc.date.issued1991-09-01en_US
dc.identifier.citationLupinetti, Flavian M., Lemmer, Jr., John H. (1991/09/01)."Comparison of allografts and prosthetic valves when used for emergency aortic valve replacement for active infective endocarditis." The American Journal of Cardiology 68(6): 637-641. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/29163>en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T10-4C76C65-KW/2/e8adc856f222c3d2b941e33562b424e0en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/29163
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=1877481&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractAortic valve replacement (AVR) using allografts is an established method of treating aortic valve disease. It is uncertain, however, whether the increased technical demands of allograft AVR can be justified in emergency operations. This study reports 15 patients treated between 1987 and 1990 for acute bacterial or fungal endocarditis involving the aortic valve. Patients underwent emergency AVR because of severe congestive failure, overwhelming sepsis or cerebral emboli. Eight patients received prosthetic valves (group I: 4 mechanical, 4 porcine) and 7 received human allografts (group II: 5 aortic and 2 pulmonary). The groups were comparable in age (group I, 55 years; group II, 51 years), intravenous drug abuse (group I, 1; group II, 3), and previous AVR (group I, 3; group II, 2). One group I and 4 group II patients had septal abscesses. Additional procedures in group I included mitral valve replacement (2), tricuspid valve replacement (1) and aortic root replacement (1). Additional procedures in group II were mitral valve repair (1), root replacement (1), atrial septal defect closure (1) and aortocoronary bypass (1). Mean bypass times (group I, 189 minutes; group II, 204 minutes) and cross-clamp times (group I; 108 minutes; group II, 121 minutes) were similar. Operative deaths occurred in 4 of 8 group I and 1 of 7 group II patients. All surviving patients have been successfully followed (group I,28 months; group II, 18 months). No group I patient has required reoperation. One group II patient required reoperation for recurrent infection affecting the allograft, and another group II patient died 10 months postoperatively from noncardiac causes. All other group II patients are alive and well with functioning allografts. AVR with allografts can be performed safely in this high-risk patient population.en_US
dc.format.extent590079 bytes
dc.format.extent3118 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.titleComparison of allografts and prosthetic valves when used for emergency aortic valve replacement for active infective endocarditisen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelInternal Medicine and Specialtiesen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumFrom the Section of Thoracic Surgery, Departments of Surgery, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; From the University of Iowa School of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumFrom the University of Iowa School of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa, USA; From the Section of Thoracic Surgery, Departments of Surgery, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAen_US
dc.identifier.pmid1877481en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/29163/1/0000208.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(91)90357-Qen_US
dc.identifier.sourceThe American Journal of Cardiologyen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.