Should bioprostheses be considered the valve of choice for dialysis-dependent patients?

There is controversy regarding the choice of prosthetic valves in patients with cardiac valve disease and dialysis-dependent patients. This review assesses a 12-year experience and outcomes after valve replacement in patients on chronic preoperative renal dialysis, comparing survival and valve-relat...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of cardiothoracic surgery 2013-03, Vol.8 (1), p.42-42, Article 42
Hauptverfasser: Zhibing, Qiu, Xin, Chen, Ming, Xu, Lele, Liu, YingShuo, Jiang, LiMing, Wang
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 42
container_issue 1
container_start_page 42
container_title Journal of cardiothoracic surgery
container_volume 8
creator Zhibing, Qiu
Xin, Chen
Ming, Xu
Lele, Liu
YingShuo, Jiang
LiMing, Wang
description There is controversy regarding the choice of prosthetic valves in patients with cardiac valve disease and dialysis-dependent patients. This review assesses a 12-year experience and outcomes after valve replacement in patients on chronic preoperative renal dialysis, comparing survival and valve-related outcomes following valve replacement with bioprostheses versus mechanical prostheses in this population in china. From January 1999 and October 2011, 73 consecutive dialysis patients underwent cardiac valve replacement. The patients were divided into two groups: (Group B) bioprosthesis valves were implanted in 38 (52.1%) patients and (Group M) mechanical valves were implanted in 35 (47.9%) patients. Outcome measures included perioperative data, hospital mortality, major postoperative complications, follow-up outcomes, valve related morbidity and late survival. There were no significant differences in terms of patient characteristics in the 2 groups. Thirty-three were isolated aortic valve replacements (45.2%); 28 were isolated mitral valve replacements (38.4%); 10 were combined aortic and mitral replacements (13.7%); 2 were combined tricuspid and mitral replacements (2.7%). The overall hospital mortality was 5.5% (n = 4) and was not different between Group B (5.3%) and Group M (5.7%). Low ejection fraction was the only independent predictors of hospital mortality. There was no significant difference between the groups in the overall rate of complications. The overall mean follow-up was 47 ± 23 months. According to the Kaplan-Meier analysis, late mortality, perivalvular leak and freedom from reoperation were similar in patients with mechanical and bioprosthesis valves. The bioprosthesis valve group had significantly higher freedom from thromboembelism-bleeding events (100% versus 77.6 ± 11.0%, p = 0.012), and valve-related morbidity (73.2 ± 10.1% versus 58.1 ± 10.9%, p = 0.035) in 5 years. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 0.971, 0.832, and 0.530 in group B, and 0.967, 0.848, and 0.568 in group M. There is no significant difference in the perioperative morbidity and mortality, late survival of dialysis patients after cardiac valve replacement with bioprostheses versus mechanical valves. In spite of the limited sample size analyzed, its outcome and consistency to several previous reports supports a conclusion that bioprostheses rather than mechanical ones could be a favorable choice for valve replacement needs of renal failure patients.
doi_str_mv 10.1186/1749-8090-8-42
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3606457</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A534718835</galeid><sourcerecordid>A534718835</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b543t-cec35e4158a1c3927ce9ca9b129987792ec4ae4a09439d79107339e2029378353</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1Uk1v1TAQtBAVLYUrR2SJC5cUfyW2L6Cnii-pUg8FcbQce9PnKomDnTyp_x6HlkcLrXxYa3Y8651dhF5RckKpat5RKXSliCaVqgR7go72wNM790P0POcrQkTNSf0MHTIutGyoOEI_LrZx6T1uQ5xSzPMWMmTcAnZxzMFDAo8LiHe23wGOHXbbGBzgLibsg-2vc8iVhwlGD-OMJzuHEvOHF-igs32Gl7fxGH3_9PHb6Zfq7Pzz19PNWdXWgs-VA8drELRWljqumXSgndUtZVorKTUDJywIS7Tg2ktNieRcAyNMc6l4zY_R-xvdaWkH8K4UT7Y3UwqDTdcm2mDuZ8awNZdxZ3hDGlHLIrC5ESgOPCJwP-PiYFZjzWqsUUawovH29hMp_lwgz2YI2UHf2xHikg3lVDe0EWqlvvmHehWXNBaLVpZSTApG_7IubQ8mjF0spd0qajY1F7IQf_d-8gCrHA9DKPODLhT8oQeujDon6PZtUmLWdfq_sdd33d3T_-wP_wVNkMRv</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1318827421</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Should bioprostheses be considered the valve of choice for dialysis-dependent patients?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Zhibing, Qiu ; Xin, Chen ; Ming, Xu ; Lele, Liu ; YingShuo, Jiang ; LiMing, Wang</creator><creatorcontrib>Zhibing, Qiu ; Xin, Chen ; Ming, Xu ; Lele, Liu ; YingShuo, Jiang ; LiMing, Wang</creatorcontrib><description>There is controversy regarding the choice of prosthetic valves in patients with cardiac valve disease and dialysis-dependent patients. This review assesses a 12-year experience and outcomes after valve replacement in patients on chronic preoperative renal dialysis, comparing survival and valve-related outcomes following valve replacement with bioprostheses versus mechanical prostheses in this population in china. From January 1999 and October 2011, 73 consecutive dialysis patients underwent cardiac valve replacement. The patients were divided into two groups: (Group B) bioprosthesis valves were implanted in 38 (52.1%) patients and (Group M) mechanical valves were implanted in 35 (47.9%) patients. Outcome measures included perioperative data, hospital mortality, major postoperative complications, follow-up outcomes, valve related morbidity and late survival. There were no significant differences in terms of patient characteristics in the 2 groups. Thirty-three were isolated aortic valve replacements (45.2%); 28 were isolated mitral valve replacements (38.4%); 10 were combined aortic and mitral replacements (13.7%); 2 were combined tricuspid and mitral replacements (2.7%). The overall hospital mortality was 5.5% (n = 4) and was not different between Group B (5.3%) and Group M (5.7%). Low ejection fraction was the only independent predictors of hospital mortality. There was no significant difference between the groups in the overall rate of complications. The overall mean follow-up was 47 ± 23 months. According to the Kaplan-Meier analysis, late mortality, perivalvular leak and freedom from reoperation were similar in patients with mechanical and bioprosthesis valves. The bioprosthesis valve group had significantly higher freedom from thromboembelism-bleeding events (100% versus 77.6 ± 11.0%, p = 0.012), and valve-related morbidity (73.2 ± 10.1% versus 58.1 ± 10.9%, p = 0.035) in 5 years. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 0.971, 0.832, and 0.530 in group B, and 0.967, 0.848, and 0.568 in group M. There is no significant difference in the perioperative morbidity and mortality, late survival of dialysis patients after cardiac valve replacement with bioprostheses versus mechanical valves. In spite of the limited sample size analyzed, its outcome and consistency to several previous reports supports a conclusion that bioprostheses rather than mechanical ones could be a favorable choice for valve replacement needs of renal failure patients.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1749-8090</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1749-8090</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/1749-8090-8-42</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23497614</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central Ltd</publisher><subject>Aged ; Analysis ; Bioprosthesis ; Female ; Health aspects ; Heart Valve Diseases - surgery ; Heart Valve Prosthesis ; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation ; Humans ; Implants, Artificial ; Male ; Medical research ; Medicine, Experimental ; Middle Aged ; Mortality ; Prosthesis ; Renal Dialysis ; Review</subject><ispartof>Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2013-03, Vol.8 (1), p.42-42, Article 42</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2013 BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><rights>2013 Zhibing et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</rights><rights>Copyright ©2013 Zhibing et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013 Zhibing et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b543t-cec35e4158a1c3927ce9ca9b129987792ec4ae4a09439d79107339e2029378353</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b543t-cec35e4158a1c3927ce9ca9b129987792ec4ae4a09439d79107339e2029378353</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3606457/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3606457/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,724,777,781,861,882,27905,27906,53772,53774</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23497614$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zhibing, Qiu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xin, Chen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ming, Xu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lele, Liu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>YingShuo, Jiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LiMing, Wang</creatorcontrib><title>Should bioprostheses be considered the valve of choice for dialysis-dependent patients?</title><title>Journal of cardiothoracic surgery</title><addtitle>J Cardiothorac Surg</addtitle><description>There is controversy regarding the choice of prosthetic valves in patients with cardiac valve disease and dialysis-dependent patients. This review assesses a 12-year experience and outcomes after valve replacement in patients on chronic preoperative renal dialysis, comparing survival and valve-related outcomes following valve replacement with bioprostheses versus mechanical prostheses in this population in china. From January 1999 and October 2011, 73 consecutive dialysis patients underwent cardiac valve replacement. The patients were divided into two groups: (Group B) bioprosthesis valves were implanted in 38 (52.1%) patients and (Group M) mechanical valves were implanted in 35 (47.9%) patients. Outcome measures included perioperative data, hospital mortality, major postoperative complications, follow-up outcomes, valve related morbidity and late survival. There were no significant differences in terms of patient characteristics in the 2 groups. Thirty-three were isolated aortic valve replacements (45.2%); 28 were isolated mitral valve replacements (38.4%); 10 were combined aortic and mitral replacements (13.7%); 2 were combined tricuspid and mitral replacements (2.7%). The overall hospital mortality was 5.5% (n = 4) and was not different between Group B (5.3%) and Group M (5.7%). Low ejection fraction was the only independent predictors of hospital mortality. There was no significant difference between the groups in the overall rate of complications. The overall mean follow-up was 47 ± 23 months. According to the Kaplan-Meier analysis, late mortality, perivalvular leak and freedom from reoperation were similar in patients with mechanical and bioprosthesis valves. The bioprosthesis valve group had significantly higher freedom from thromboembelism-bleeding events (100% versus 77.6 ± 11.0%, p = 0.012), and valve-related morbidity (73.2 ± 10.1% versus 58.1 ± 10.9%, p = 0.035) in 5 years. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 0.971, 0.832, and 0.530 in group B, and 0.967, 0.848, and 0.568 in group M. There is no significant difference in the perioperative morbidity and mortality, late survival of dialysis patients after cardiac valve replacement with bioprostheses versus mechanical valves. In spite of the limited sample size analyzed, its outcome and consistency to several previous reports supports a conclusion that bioprostheses rather than mechanical ones could be a favorable choice for valve replacement needs of renal failure patients.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Bioprosthesis</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Heart Valve Diseases - surgery</subject><subject>Heart Valve Prosthesis</subject><subject>Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Implants, Artificial</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine, Experimental</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Prosthesis</subject><subject>Renal Dialysis</subject><subject>Review</subject><issn>1749-8090</issn><issn>1749-8090</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp1Uk1v1TAQtBAVLYUrR2SJC5cUfyW2L6Cnii-pUg8FcbQce9PnKomDnTyp_x6HlkcLrXxYa3Y8651dhF5RckKpat5RKXSliCaVqgR7go72wNM790P0POcrQkTNSf0MHTIutGyoOEI_LrZx6T1uQ5xSzPMWMmTcAnZxzMFDAo8LiHe23wGOHXbbGBzgLibsg-2vc8iVhwlGD-OMJzuHEvOHF-igs32Gl7fxGH3_9PHb6Zfq7Pzz19PNWdXWgs-VA8drELRWljqumXSgndUtZVorKTUDJywIS7Tg2ktNieRcAyNMc6l4zY_R-xvdaWkH8K4UT7Y3UwqDTdcm2mDuZ8awNZdxZ3hDGlHLIrC5ESgOPCJwP-PiYFZjzWqsUUawovH29hMp_lwgz2YI2UHf2xHikg3lVDe0EWqlvvmHehWXNBaLVpZSTApG_7IubQ8mjF0spd0qajY1F7IQf_d-8gCrHA9DKPODLhT8oQeujDon6PZtUmLWdfq_sdd33d3T_-wP_wVNkMRv</recordid><startdate>20130308</startdate><enddate>20130308</enddate><creator>Zhibing, Qiu</creator><creator>Xin, Chen</creator><creator>Ming, Xu</creator><creator>Lele, Liu</creator><creator>YingShuo, Jiang</creator><creator>LiMing, Wang</creator><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><general>BioMed Central</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130308</creationdate><title>Should bioprostheses be considered the valve of choice for dialysis-dependent patients?</title><author>Zhibing, Qiu ; Xin, Chen ; Ming, Xu ; Lele, Liu ; YingShuo, Jiang ; LiMing, Wang</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b543t-cec35e4158a1c3927ce9ca9b129987792ec4ae4a09439d79107339e2029378353</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Bioprosthesis</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Heart Valve Diseases - surgery</topic><topic>Heart Valve Prosthesis</topic><topic>Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Implants, Artificial</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine, Experimental</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Prosthesis</topic><topic>Renal Dialysis</topic><topic>Review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zhibing, Qiu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xin, Chen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ming, Xu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lele, Liu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>YingShuo, Jiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LiMing, Wang</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of cardiothoracic surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zhibing, Qiu</au><au>Xin, Chen</au><au>Ming, Xu</au><au>Lele, Liu</au><au>YingShuo, Jiang</au><au>LiMing, Wang</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Should bioprostheses be considered the valve of choice for dialysis-dependent patients?</atitle><jtitle>Journal of cardiothoracic surgery</jtitle><addtitle>J Cardiothorac Surg</addtitle><date>2013-03-08</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>42</spage><epage>42</epage><pages>42-42</pages><artnum>42</artnum><issn>1749-8090</issn><eissn>1749-8090</eissn><abstract>There is controversy regarding the choice of prosthetic valves in patients with cardiac valve disease and dialysis-dependent patients. This review assesses a 12-year experience and outcomes after valve replacement in patients on chronic preoperative renal dialysis, comparing survival and valve-related outcomes following valve replacement with bioprostheses versus mechanical prostheses in this population in china. From January 1999 and October 2011, 73 consecutive dialysis patients underwent cardiac valve replacement. The patients were divided into two groups: (Group B) bioprosthesis valves were implanted in 38 (52.1%) patients and (Group M) mechanical valves were implanted in 35 (47.9%) patients. Outcome measures included perioperative data, hospital mortality, major postoperative complications, follow-up outcomes, valve related morbidity and late survival. There were no significant differences in terms of patient characteristics in the 2 groups. Thirty-three were isolated aortic valve replacements (45.2%); 28 were isolated mitral valve replacements (38.4%); 10 were combined aortic and mitral replacements (13.7%); 2 were combined tricuspid and mitral replacements (2.7%). The overall hospital mortality was 5.5% (n = 4) and was not different between Group B (5.3%) and Group M (5.7%). Low ejection fraction was the only independent predictors of hospital mortality. There was no significant difference between the groups in the overall rate of complications. The overall mean follow-up was 47 ± 23 months. According to the Kaplan-Meier analysis, late mortality, perivalvular leak and freedom from reoperation were similar in patients with mechanical and bioprosthesis valves. The bioprosthesis valve group had significantly higher freedom from thromboembelism-bleeding events (100% versus 77.6 ± 11.0%, p = 0.012), and valve-related morbidity (73.2 ± 10.1% versus 58.1 ± 10.9%, p = 0.035) in 5 years. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 0.971, 0.832, and 0.530 in group B, and 0.967, 0.848, and 0.568 in group M. There is no significant difference in the perioperative morbidity and mortality, late survival of dialysis patients after cardiac valve replacement with bioprostheses versus mechanical valves. In spite of the limited sample size analyzed, its outcome and consistency to several previous reports supports a conclusion that bioprostheses rather than mechanical ones could be a favorable choice for valve replacement needs of renal failure patients.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central Ltd</pub><pmid>23497614</pmid><doi>10.1186/1749-8090-8-42</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1749-8090
ispartof Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2013-03, Vol.8 (1), p.42-42, Article 42
issn 1749-8090
1749-8090
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3606457
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; SpringerLink Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central Open Access; Springer Nature OA Free Journals; PubMed Central
subjects Aged
Analysis
Bioprosthesis
Female
Health aspects
Heart Valve Diseases - surgery
Heart Valve Prosthesis
Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation
Humans
Implants, Artificial
Male
Medical research
Medicine, Experimental
Middle Aged
Mortality
Prosthesis
Renal Dialysis
Review
title Should bioprostheses be considered the valve of choice for dialysis-dependent patients?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T04%3A38%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Should%20bioprostheses%20be%20considered%20the%20valve%20of%20choice%20for%20dialysis-dependent%20patients?&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20cardiothoracic%20surgery&rft.au=Zhibing,%20Qiu&rft.date=2013-03-08&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=42&rft.epage=42&rft.pages=42-42&rft.artnum=42&rft.issn=1749-8090&rft.eissn=1749-8090&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/1749-8090-8-42&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA534718835%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1318827421&rft_id=info:pmid/23497614&rft_galeid=A534718835&rfr_iscdi=true