Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published bySonny Lesmono Modified over 5 years ago
1
Durability of pericardial versus porcine bioprosthetic heart valves
Gary L. Grunkemeier, PhD, Anthony P. Furnary, MD, YingXing Wu, MD, MS, Lian Wang, MS, Albert Starr, MD The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Volume 144, Issue 6, Pages (December 2012) DOI: /j.jtcvs Copyright © 2012 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Terms and Conditions
2
Figure 1 Scatter plot of patient age during implant year, with local regression (LOESS; locally weighted scatterplot smoothing) nonparametric regression curves fit to the individual points. AVR, Aortic valve replacement; MVR, mitral valve replacement. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery , DOI: ( /j.jtcvs ) Copyright © 2012 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Terms and Conditions
3
Figure 2 Cumulative incidence function estimates of explant for any reason in operative survivors. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery , DOI: ( /j.jtcvs ) Copyright © 2012 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Terms and Conditions
4
Figure 3 Cumulative incidence function estimates of explant for structural valve deterioration (SVD) in operative survivors. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery , DOI: ( /j.jtcvs ) Copyright © 2012 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Terms and Conditions
5
Figure 4 Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimate of explantation, superimposed on the distribution of multiple valve states over time for the porcine and pericardial aortic valve replacement series combined. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery , DOI: ( /j.jtcvs ) Copyright © 2012 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Terms and Conditions
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.