CC BY 4.0 · Aorta (Stamford) 2014; 02(01): 1-9
DOI: 10.12945/j.aorta.2014.14-005
PRO-CON Debate
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Can the Results of Aortic Valve Repair Equal the Results of a Biologic Aortic Valve Replacement?

Mohamad Bashir
1   Aortic Aneurysm Service, Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom
,
Aung Oo
1   Aortic Aneurysm Service, Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom
,
Ruggero De Paulis
2   Cardiac Surgery Department, European Hospital-Rome, Rome, Italy
,
Michael A. Borger
3   Heart Center Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
,
Gebrine El Khoury
4   St-Luc Hospital, Brussels, Belgium
,
Joseph Bavaria
5   Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
,
John A. Elefteraides
6   Aortic Institute of Yale-New Haven Hospital, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

01. Februar 2014

01. Februar 2014

Publikationsdatum:
24. September 2018 (online)

Abstract

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been the default procedure for the surgical management of aortic valve disease, with repair techniques heterogeneously and infrequently used. However, surgical aortic valve repair has evolved with improved techniques. Yet many questions remain regarding the ideal techniques and real-world applicability and effectiveness of valve repair. The AORTA Great Debate highlighted and discussed the controversies regarding the surgical management of aortic valve disease.

 
  • References

  • 1 Forcillo J, Pellerin M, Perrault LP. et al. Carpenter-Edwards pericardial valve in the aortic position: 25-years experience. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 96: 486-93
  • 2 Sharma V, Suri RM, Dearani JA. et al. Expanding relevance of aortic valve repair-is earlier operation indicated?. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; Jan; 147 (01) 100-7 . 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.08.015