Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Cardiology Research and Practice
Volume 2014, Article ID 151282, 5 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/151282
Research Article

Exercise Hemodynamics and Quality of Life after Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis in the Elderly Using the Hancock II Bioprosthesis

1Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA
2Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA
3USC Healthcare Consultation Center II, 1520 San Pablo Street, Suite 4300, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA

Received 4 July 2014; Revised 30 September 2014; Accepted 18 October 2014; Published 2 December 2014

Academic Editor: Frans Leenen

Copyright © 2014 Theodore Long et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. D. S. Likosky, M. J. Sorensen, L. J. Dacey et al., “Long-term survival of the very elderly undergoing aortic valve surgery,” Circulation, vol. 120, no. 11, supplement, pp. S127–S133, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  2. P. Varadarajan, N. Kapoor, R. C. Bansal, and R. G. Pai, “Survival in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis is dramatically improved by aortic valve replacement: results from a cohort of 277 patients aged ≥80 years,” European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 722–727, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. T. E. David, S. Armstrong, and M. Maganti, “Hancock II bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: the gold standard of bioprosthetic valves durability?” Annals of Thoracic Surgery, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 775–781, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. E. Braunwald, Heart Disease: A Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine, W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, Pa, USA, 4th edition, 1992.
  5. S. A. Lear, A. Brozic, J. N. Myers, and A. Ignaszewski, “Exercise stress testing: an overview of current guidelines,” Sports Medicine, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 285–312, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. J. L. Fleg and E. G. Lakatta, “Role of muscle loss in the age-associated reduction in VO2 max,” Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 1147–1151, 1988. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. J. E. Brazier, R. Harper, N. M. B. Jones et al., “Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care,” British Medical Journal, vol. 305, no. 6846, pp. 160–164, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. J. E. Ware Jr., M. Kosinski, M. S. Bayliss, C. A. McHorney, W. H. Rogers, and A. Raczek, “Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study,” Medical Care, vol. 33, supplement 4, pp. AS264–AS279, 1995. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. R. Arena, J. Myers, M. A. Williams et al., “Assessment of functional capacity in clinical and research settings: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association committee on exercise, rehabilitation, and prevention of the council on clinical cardiology and the council on cardiovascular nursing,” Circulation, vol. 116, no. 3, pp. 329–343, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. N. Matsumura, H. Nishijima, S. Kojima, F. Hashimoto, M. Minami, and H. Yasuda, “Determination of anaerobic threshold for assessment of functional state in patients with chronic heart failure,” Circulation, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 360–367, 1983. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. K. Wasserman, B. J. Whipp, S. N. Koyal, and W. L. Beaver, “Anaerobic threshold and respiratory gas exchange during exercise,” Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 236–243, 1973. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. C. Valfrè, P. Ius, G. Minniti et al., “The fate of Hancock II porcine valve recipients 25 years after implant,” European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 141–146, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. V. Chan, A. Kulik, A. Tran et al., “Long-term clinical and hemodynamic performance of the hancock II versus the perimount aortic bioprostheses,” Circulation, vol. 122, no. 11, pp. S10–S16, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. G. Gerosa, V. Tarzia, G. Rizzoli, and T. Bottio, “Small aortic annulus: the hydrodynamic performances of 5 commercially available tissue valves,” The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, vol. 131, no. 5, pp. 1058.e2–1064.e2, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. T. Bottio, V. Tarzia, G. Rizzoli, and G. Gerosa, “The changing spectrum of bioprostheses hydrodynamic performance: considerations on in-vitro tests,” Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 750–754, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. W. B. Eichinger, F. Botzenhardt, A. Keithahn et al., “Exercise hemodynamics of bovine versus porcine bioprostheses: a prospective randomized comparison of the Mosaic and Perimount aortic valves,” The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, vol. 129, no. 5, pp. 1056–1063, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. J. B. Chambers, R. Rajani, D. Parkin et al., “Bovine pericardial versus porcine stented replacement aortic valves: early results of a randomized comparison of the Perimount and the Mosaic valves,” The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, vol. 136, no. 5, pp. 1142–1148, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. R. J. Shephard and B. Franklin, “Changes in the quality of life: a major goal of cardiac rehabilitation,” Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 189–200, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. D. G. Contopoulos-Ioannidis, A. Karvouni, I. Kouri, and J. P. A. Ioannidis, “Reporting and interpretation of SF-36 outcomes in randomised trials: systematic review,” BMJ, vol. 338, no. 7687, pp. 152–154, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. C. Sanders, M. Egger, J. Donovan, D. Tallon, and S. Frankel, “Reporting on quality of life in randomised controlled trials: bibliographic study,” British Medical Journal, vol. 317, no. 7167, pp. 1191–1194, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. I. R. Goldsmith, G. Y. Lip, and R. L. Patel, “A prospective study of changes in patients' quality of life after aortic valve replacement,” The Journal of Heart Valve Disease, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 346–353, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. A. Sedrakyan, P. Hebert, V. Vaccarino et al., “Quality of life after aortic valve replacement with tissue and mechanical implants,” The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, vol. 128, no. 2, pp. 266–272, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. M.-C. Taillefer, G. Dupuis, J.-F. Hardy, and S. LeMay, “Quality of life before and after heart valve surgery is influenced by gender and type of valve,” Quality of Life Research, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 769–778, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus