p.124 抽出テキスト

486. Nishimura RA, Grantham JA, Connolly HM, et al. Low-output, low-gradient aortic stenosis in patients with depressed left ventricular systolic function: the clinical utility of the dobutamine challenge in the catheterization laboratory. Circulation 2002; 106: 809-813. PMID: 12176952 487. Cueff C, Serfaty JM, Cimadevilla C, et al. Measurement of aortic valve calcification using multislice computed tomography: correlation with haemodynamic severity of aortic stenosis and clinical implication for patients with low ejection fraction. Heart 2011; 97: 721- 726. PMID: 20720250 488. Ribeiro HB, Lerakis S, Gilard M, et al. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: The TOPAS-TAVI Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 71: 1297- 1308. PMID: 29566812 489. Hachicha Z, Dumesnil JG, Bogaty P, et al. Paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction is associated with higher afterload and reduced survival. Circulation 2007; 115: 2856-2864. PMID: 17533183 490. Jander N, Minners J, Holme I, et al. Outcome of patients with low-gradient “severe” aortic stenosis and preserved ejection fraction. Circulation 2011; 123: 887-895. PMID: 21321152 491. Tribouilloy C, Rusinaru D, Maréchaux S, et al. Low-gradient, lowflow severe aortic stenosis with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: characteristics, outcome, and implications for surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65: 55-66. PMID: 25572511 492. Yamashita E, Takeuchi M, Seo Y, et al. Prognostic value of paradoxical low-gradient severe aortic stenosis in Japan: Japanese Multicenter Aortic Stenosis Study, Retrospective (JUST-R) Registry. J Cardiol 2015; 65: 360-368. PMID: 25687368 493. Eleid MF, Sorajja P, Michelena HI, et al. Flow-gradient patterns in severe aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction: clinical characteristics and predictors of survival. Circulation 2013; 128: 1781- 1789. PMID: 24048203 494. Mehrotra P, Jansen K, Flynn AW, et al. Differential left ventricular remodelling and longitudinal function distinguishes low flow from normal-flow preserved ejection fraction low-gradient severe aortic stenosis. Eur Heart J 2013; 34: 1906-1914. PMID: 23533186 495. Tabata M, Shibayama K, Watanabe H, et al. Simple interrupted suturing increases valve performance after aortic valve replacement with a small supra-annular bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 147: 321-325. PMID: 23228405 496. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36: 1131-1141. PMID: 11028462 497. Head SJ, Mokhles MM, Osnabrugge RL, et al. The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 observational studies comprising 27 186 patients with 133 141 patient-years. Eur Heart J 2012; 33: 1518-1529. PMID: 22408037 498. Jamieson WR, Ye J, Higgins J, et al. Effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival with aortic valve replacement: assessment to 15 years. Ann Thorac Surg 2010; 89: 51-59. PMID: 20103205 499. Koch CG, Khandwala F, Estafanous FG, et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient size on functional recovery after aortic valve replacement. Circulation 2005; 111: 3221-3229. PMID: 15956129 500. Moon MR, Pasque MK, Munfakh NA, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement: impact of age and body size on late survival. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 81: 481-489. PMID: 16427836 501. Moon MR, Lawton JS, Moazami N, et al. POINT: Prosthesis-patient mismatch does not affect survival for patients greater than 70 years of age undergoing bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137: 278-283. PMID: 19185136 502. Cohen RG, Bourne ET. Industry-generated charts for the selection of stented aortic valve prostheses: clinical tool or marketing ploy? Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 91: 1001-1002. PMID: 21440115 503. St Rammos K, Ketikoglou DG, Koullias GJ, et al. The Nicks-Nunez posterior enlargement in the small aortic annulus: immediate-intermediate results. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2006; 5: 749-753. PMID: 17670704 504. Grubb KJ. Aortic Root Enlargement During Aortic Valve Replacement: Nicks and Manouguian Techniques. Oper Tech Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 20: 206-218. 505. Penta de Peppo A, Zeitani J, Nardi P, et al. Small “functional” size after mechanical aortic valve replacement: no risk in young to middle-age patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2005; 79: 1915-1920. PMID: 15919284 506. Handa N, Miyata H, Motomura N, et al. Japan Adult Cardiovascular

Database Organization. Procedure- and age-specific risk stratification of single aortic valve replacement in elderly patients based on Japan Adult Cardiovascular Surgery Database. Circ J 2012; 76: 356-364. PMID: 22112860 507. Yamauchi T, Hiroshi T, Toda K, et al. Osaka Cardiovascular Surgery

Research Group (OSCAR). Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Octogenerians in the Era of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Circ J 2018; 82: 1592-1597. PMID: 29669969 508. Minakata K, Tanaka S, Okawa Y, et al. Twenty-year outcome of aortic valve replacement with St. Jude Medical mechanical valves in Japanese patients. Circ J 2015; 79: 2380-2388. PMID: 26346033 509. Nishida T, Sonoda H, Oishi Y, et al. Long-term results of aortic valve replacement with mechanical prosthesis or carpentier-edwards perimount bioprosthesis in Japanese patients according to age. Circ J 2014; 78: 2688-2695. PMID: 25262964 510. Birla R, Twine G, Unsworth-White J. Randomized trial of carpentier-edwards supraannular prosthesis versus mosaic aortic prosthesis: 6 year results. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 95: 831-837. PMID: 23201103 511. Chaudhry MA, Raco L, Muriithi EW, et al. Porcine versus pericardial bioprostheses: eleven-year follow up of a prospective randomized trial. J Heart Valve Dis 2000; 9: 429-437. PMID: 10888102 512. Andreas M, Wallner S, Ruetzler K, et al. Comparable long-term results for porcine and pericardial prostheses after isolated aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 48: 557-561. PMID: 25527170 513. Rahimtoola SH. Choice of prosthetic heart valve in adults an update. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55: 2413-2426. PMID: 20510209 514. Webb J, Parkin D, Tøndel K, et al. A comparison of early redo surgery rates in Mosaic porcine and Perimount bovine pericardial valves. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2018; 54: 724-728. PMID: 29579171 515. Cribier A, Savin T, Saoudi N, et al. Percutaneous transluminal valvuloplasty of acquired aortic stenosis in elderly patients: an alternative to valve replacement? Lancet 1986; 327: 63-67. PMID: 2867315 516. Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H, Bash A, et al. Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: first human case description. Circulation 2002; 106: 3006-3008. PMID: 12473543 517. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, et al. PARTNER 2 Investigators. Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients. N Engl J Med 2016; 374: 1609-1620. PMID: 27040324 518. Thourani VH, Kodali S, Makkar RR, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: a propensity score analysis. Lancet 2016; 387: 2218-2225. PMID: 27053442 519. Reardon MJ, Van Mieghem NM, Popma JJ, et al. SURTAVI Investigators. Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients. N Engl J Med 2017; 376: 1321-1331. PMID: 28304219 520. Mack MJ, Leon MB, Thourani VH, et al. PARTNER 3 Investigators. Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Balloon-Expandable Valve in Low-Risk Patients. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 1695-1705. PMID: 30883058 521. Popma JJ, Deeb GM, Yakubov SJ, et al. Evolut Low Risk Trial Investigators. Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Valve in Low-Risk Patients. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 1706-1715. PMID: 30883053 522. Thyregod HGH, Ihlemann N, Jørgensen TH, et al. Five-Year Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes from the Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION) Randomized Clinical Trial in Lower Surgical Risk Patients. Circulation 2019; 139: 2714-2723. PMID: 30704298 523. Handa N, Kumamaru H, Torikai K, et al. Japanese TAVR Registry Participants. Learning Curve for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Under a Controlled Introduction System - Initial Analysis of a Japanese Nationwide Registry. Circ J 2018; 82: 1951-1958. PMID: 29794375 524. Yamamoto M, Watanabe Y, Tada N, et al. OCEAN-TAVI investigators. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement outcomes in Japan: Optimized CathEter vAlvular iNtervention (OCEAN) Japanese multicenter registry. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2019; 20: 843-851. PMID: 30553819 525. Blackman DJ, Saraf S, MacCarthy PA, et al. Long-Term Durability of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Prostheses. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 73: 537-545. PMID: 30732706 526. Søndergaard L, Ihlemann N, Capodanno D, et al. Durability of Transcatheter and Surgical Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves in Patients at Lower Surgical Risk. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 73: 546-553. PMID: 30732707 527. Deutsch MA, Erlebach M, Burri M, et al. Beyond the five-year hori-

zon: long-term outcome of high-risk and inoperable patients undergoing TAVR with first-generation devices. EuroIntervention 2018; 14: 41-49. PMID: 29581084