ABC | Volume 112, Nº3, March 2019

Original Article Kiyose et al A systematic review for valvular prostheses Arq Bras Cardiol. 2019; 112(3):292-301 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 18. Bloomfield P, Kitchin AH, Wheatley DJ, Walbaum PR, Lutz W, Miller HC. A prospective evaluation of the Björk-Shiley, Hancock, and Carpentier- Edwards heart valve prostheses. Circulation. 1986;73(6):1213-22. 19. Bloomfield P, Wheatley DJ, Prescott RJ, Miller HC. Twelve-year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. N Engl J Med .1991;324(9):573-9. 20. OxenhamH, Bloomfield P, Wheatley DJ, Lee RJ, Cunningham J, Prescott RJ, et al. Twenty year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. Heart. 2003;89(7):715-21. 21. Stassano P, Di Tommaso L, Monaco M, Iorio F, Pepino P, Spampinato N, et al. Aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized evaluation of mechanical versus biological valves in patients ages 55 to 70 years . J AmColl Cardiol. 2009;54(20):1862-8. 22. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP 3rd, Guyton RA, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(22):e57-e185. 23. Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F, Antunes MJ, Baron-Esquivias G, Baumgartner H, et al. [Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012). The Joint Task Force on theManagement of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)]. G Ital Cardiol (Rome). 2013;14(3):167-214. 24. Suri RM., Schaff HV. Selection of aortic valve prostheses: contemporary reappraisal of mechanical versus biologic valve substitutes. Circulation. 2013;128(12):1372-80. 301