Impact of concurrent surgical valve procedures in patients receiving continuous-flow devices Ranjit John, MD, Yoshifumi Naka, MD, Soon J. Park, MD, Chittoor Sai-Sudhakar, MD, Christopher Salerno, MD, Kartik S. Sundareswaran, PhD, David J. Farrar, PhD, Carmelo A. Milano, MD The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Volume 147, Issue 2, Pages 581-589 (February 2014) DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.10.024 Copyright © 2014 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Terms and Conditions
Figure 1 Patient cohort used in this study. HMII, HeartMate II; BTT, bridge to heart transplant; DT, destination therapy. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2014 147, 581-589DOI: (10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.10.024) Copyright © 2014 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Terms and Conditions
Figure 2 Kaplan-Meier survival of patients undergoing HMII alone versus HMII + concurrent valve procedures. HMII, HeartMate II; VP, valve procedure. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2014 147, 581-589DOI: (10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.10.024) Copyright © 2014 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Terms and Conditions
Figure 3 Kaplan-Meier survival of patients undergoing HMII alone and (A) isolated aortic valve procedure (AVP); B, isolated mitral valve procedure (MVP); C, isolated tricuspid valve procedure (TVP); and D, multiple valve procedures. HMII, HeartMate II. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2014 147, 581-589DOI: (10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.10.024) Copyright © 2014 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Terms and Conditions