ABC | Volume 112, Nº3, Março 2019

Artigo Original Kiyose et al Uma revisão sistemática de próteses valvares Arq Bras Cardiol. 2019; 112(3):292-301 1. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthetic heart valves: selection of the optimal prosthesis and long-termmanagement. Circulation. 2009;19(7):1034-48. 2. Bonow RO, Carabello B, de Leon AC, Henry EL, Fedderly BJ, Freed MD, et al. Guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease executive summary a report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease). Circulation. 1998;98(18):1949-84. 3. Vahanian A, Baumgartner H, Bax J, Butchart E, Dion R, Filippatos G, et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease: The task force on the management of valvular heart disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2007;28(2):230-68. 4. Dagenais F, Cartier P, Voisine P, Desaulniers D, Perron J, Baillot R,et al.Which biologic valve shouldwe select for the 45- to 65-year-old age group requiring aortic valve replacement? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;129(5):1041-9. 5. Hoffmann G, Lutter G, Cremer J. Durability of bioprosthetic cardiac valves. Deutsches Arzteblatt Int. 2008;105(8):143-8. 6. El Oakley R, Kleine P, Bach DS, Bach MD. Choice of prosthetic heart valve in today’s practice. Circulation. 2008;117(2):253-6. 7. Wood DA, Gurvitch R, Cheung A, Ye J, Leipsic J., Horlick E, et al. Transcathetervalve invalve implantation for failed bioprosthetic heartvalves. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(10 Suppl):A147-E1385. 8. Kassai B, Gueyffier F, Cucherat M, Boissel J P. Comparison of bioprosthesis and mechanical valves, ameta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Cardiovasc Surg.2000; 8(6):477-83. 9. Brandau R, Monteiro R, Braile DM. Importância do uso correto dos descritores nos artigos científicos. Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc. 2005;20(1):7-9. 10. Higgins JP. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell;2008. V.5. 11. Higgins JPT, AltmanDG. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green G, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. England: Wiley-Blackwell;2009. p.187-241. 12. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):401-6. 13. Vallejo JL. Randomised, prospective, clinical study comparing the Björk- Shiley, Lillehei-Kaster and Angell-Shiley prostheses in the mitral position. Rev Esp Cardiol. 1981;34(6):457-63. 14. Khuri, SF, Sethi GK, Souchek J, Oprian C, Wong M, Burchfiel C, et al. Six month postoperative hemodynamics of the Hancock heterograft and the Björk-Shiley prosthesis: results of a Veterans Administration cooperative prospective randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;12(1):8-18. 15. Hammermeister KE, Henderson WG, Burchfiel CM, Sethi GK, Souchek J, Oprian C, et al. Comparison of outcome after valve replacement with a bioprosthesis versus a mechanical prosthesis: initial 5 year results of a randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1987;10(4):719-32. 16. Hammermeister KE, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Oprian C, Kim T, Rahimtoola S. A comparison of outcomes in men 11 years after heart- valve replacement with a mechanical valve or bioprosthesis. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(18):1289-96. 17. Hammermeister K, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Grover FL, Oprian C, Rahimtoola SH. Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36(4):1152-8. 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. Referências Este é um artigo de acesso aberto distribuído sob os termos da licença de atribuição pelo Creative Commons 301