Selection of Prosthetic Valve and Evidence—Need for the Development of Japan’s Own Guidelines
Purpose: In 2014, the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) guidelines were largely revised with regard to the selection of prosthetic valves. (1) A mechanical prosthesis is reasonable for aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) in patients le...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2015, Vol.21(4), pp.305-313 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 313 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 305 |
container_title | Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery |
container_volume | 21 |
creator | Sezai, Akira Shiono, Motomi |
description | Purpose: In 2014, the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) guidelines were largely revised with regard to the selection of prosthetic valves. (1) A mechanical prosthesis is reasonable for aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) in patients less than 60 years of age, (2) A bioprosthesis is reasonable in patients more than 70 years of age, and (3) Either a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve is reasonable in patients between 60 and 70 years of age.Japan faces the unprecedented population aging, and moreover, the average life expectancy is longer among the Japanese than the Westerners. In Japan, whether this choice is appropriate seems questionable.Methods: This time, with the revision of the AHA/ACC guidelines, it might be necessary to take into consideration the average life expectancy of Japanese people and revise the Japanese guidelines accordingly.Results: We should consider whether 60–70 years should be set as a gray zone regarding the age criteria for choosing biological valves, or if the age should be set higher relative to that specified in the western guidelines, given the longer Japanese life expectancy.Conclusion: We believe that the development of unique, Japanese guidelines for the selection of prosthetic valves will allow us to provide appropriate selection and treatment for each patient. |
doi_str_mv | 10.5761/atcs.ra.15-00134 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4904864</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1705732833</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c650t-2f8a7b9fc028330654fa282fb2f904aeb9ad33fdf1beab37f45d9461f16bcec13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkc1u1DAUhS0EokNhzwp5ySaDf2In2SCh0hZQRZH42Vo3znUnlcce7Mwgdn0INrxenwSHKaOysS37O-ce-RDynLOlajR_BZPNywRLrirGuKwfkIXgra44Y-ohWZQbXs5de0Se5HzNmGy1Zo_JkdBMC9WyBYHP6NFOYww0OvopxTytcBot_QZ-hxTCQE9344DB4u3Nr4-IA3Ux0QLRt7hDHzdrDNOs_QAbCLc3vzO9_BHo-baI_BgwPyWPHPiMz-72Y_L17PTLybvq4vL8_cmbi8pqxaZKuBaavnOWiVZKplXtQLTC9cJ1rAbsOxikdIPjPUIvG1eroas1d1z3Fi2Xx-T13nez7dc42BIrgTebNK4h_TQRRvP_SxhX5iruTF38W10Xg5d3Bil-32KezHrMFr2HgHGbDW-YauScrqBsj9ryYTmhO4zhzMzNmLkZk8BwZf42UyQv7sc7CP5VUYCzPXCdJ7jCAwCp1OFx7yi4qeflnvMBsCtIBoP8AzLGqJo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1705732833</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Selection of Prosthetic Valve and Evidence—Need for the Development of Japan’s Own Guidelines</title><source>J-STAGE Free</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Sezai, Akira ; Shiono, Motomi</creator><creatorcontrib>Sezai, Akira ; Shiono, Motomi</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose: In 2014, the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) guidelines were largely revised with regard to the selection of prosthetic valves. (1) A mechanical prosthesis is reasonable for aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) in patients less than 60 years of age, (2) A bioprosthesis is reasonable in patients more than 70 years of age, and (3) Either a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve is reasonable in patients between 60 and 70 years of age.Japan faces the unprecedented population aging, and moreover, the average life expectancy is longer among the Japanese than the Westerners. In Japan, whether this choice is appropriate seems questionable.Methods: This time, with the revision of the AHA/ACC guidelines, it might be necessary to take into consideration the average life expectancy of Japanese people and revise the Japanese guidelines accordingly.Results: We should consider whether 60–70 years should be set as a gray zone regarding the age criteria for choosing biological valves, or if the age should be set higher relative to that specified in the western guidelines, given the longer Japanese life expectancy.Conclusion: We believe that the development of unique, Japanese guidelines for the selection of prosthetic valves will allow us to provide appropriate selection and treatment for each patient.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1341-1098</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2186-1005</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5761/atcs.ra.15-00134</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26062580</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Japan: The Editorial Committee of Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery</publisher><subject>Age Factors ; Bioprosthesis ; Evidence-Based Medicine ; Heart Valve Diseases - surgery ; Heart Valve Prosthesis ; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation - methods ; Humans ; Japan ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Prosthesis Design ; prosthetic valve ; Review ; Risk Factors ; Treatment Outcome ; United States ; valve replacement</subject><ispartof>Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2015, Vol.21(4), pp.305-313</ispartof><rights>2015 The Editorial Committee of Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery</rights><rights>2015 Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2015</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c650t-2f8a7b9fc028330654fa282fb2f904aeb9ad33fdf1beab37f45d9461f16bcec13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c650t-2f8a7b9fc028330654fa282fb2f904aeb9ad33fdf1beab37f45d9461f16bcec13</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/PMC4904864/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4904864/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,1877,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26062580$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sezai, Akira</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shiono, Motomi</creatorcontrib><title>Selection of Prosthetic Valve and Evidence—Need for the Development of Japan’s Own Guidelines</title><title>Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery</title><addtitle>ATCS</addtitle><description>Purpose: In 2014, the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) guidelines were largely revised with regard to the selection of prosthetic valves. (1) A mechanical prosthesis is reasonable for aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) in patients less than 60 years of age, (2) A bioprosthesis is reasonable in patients more than 70 years of age, and (3) Either a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve is reasonable in patients between 60 and 70 years of age.Japan faces the unprecedented population aging, and moreover, the average life expectancy is longer among the Japanese than the Westerners. In Japan, whether this choice is appropriate seems questionable.Methods: This time, with the revision of the AHA/ACC guidelines, it might be necessary to take into consideration the average life expectancy of Japanese people and revise the Japanese guidelines accordingly.Results: We should consider whether 60–70 years should be set as a gray zone regarding the age criteria for choosing biological valves, or if the age should be set higher relative to that specified in the western guidelines, given the longer Japanese life expectancy.Conclusion: We believe that the development of unique, Japanese guidelines for the selection of prosthetic valves will allow us to provide appropriate selection and treatment for each patient.</description><subject>Age Factors</subject><subject>Bioprosthesis</subject><subject>Evidence-Based Medicine</subject><subject>Heart Valve Diseases - surgery</subject><subject>Heart Valve Prosthesis</subject><subject>Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Japan</subject><subject>Practice Guidelines as Topic</subject><subject>Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>prosthetic valve</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>valve replacement</subject><issn>1341-1098</issn><issn>2186-1005</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkc1u1DAUhS0EokNhzwp5ySaDf2In2SCh0hZQRZH42Vo3znUnlcce7Mwgdn0INrxenwSHKaOysS37O-ce-RDynLOlajR_BZPNywRLrirGuKwfkIXgra44Y-ohWZQbXs5de0Se5HzNmGy1Zo_JkdBMC9WyBYHP6NFOYww0OvopxTytcBot_QZ-hxTCQE9344DB4u3Nr4-IA3Ux0QLRt7hDHzdrDNOs_QAbCLc3vzO9_BHo-baI_BgwPyWPHPiMz-72Y_L17PTLybvq4vL8_cmbi8pqxaZKuBaavnOWiVZKplXtQLTC9cJ1rAbsOxikdIPjPUIvG1eroas1d1z3Fi2Xx-T13nez7dc42BIrgTebNK4h_TQRRvP_SxhX5iruTF38W10Xg5d3Bil-32KezHrMFr2HgHGbDW-YauScrqBsj9ryYTmhO4zhzMzNmLkZk8BwZf42UyQv7sc7CP5VUYCzPXCdJ7jCAwCp1OFx7yi4qeflnvMBsCtIBoP8AzLGqJo</recordid><startdate>20150101</startdate><enddate>20150101</enddate><creator>Sezai, Akira</creator><creator>Shiono, Motomi</creator><general>The Editorial Committee of Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery</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>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150101</creationdate><title>Selection of Prosthetic Valve and Evidence—Need for the Development of Japan’s Own Guidelines</title><author>Sezai, Akira ; Shiono, Motomi</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c650t-2f8a7b9fc028330654fa282fb2f904aeb9ad33fdf1beab37f45d9461f16bcec13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Age Factors</topic><topic>Bioprosthesis</topic><topic>Evidence-Based Medicine</topic><topic>Heart Valve Diseases - surgery</topic><topic>Heart Valve Prosthesis</topic><topic>Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Japan</topic><topic>Practice Guidelines as Topic</topic><topic>Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>prosthetic valve</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>valve replacement</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sezai, Akira</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shiono, Motomi</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sezai, Akira</au><au>Shiono, Motomi</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Selection of Prosthetic Valve and Evidence—Need for the Development of Japan’s Own Guidelines</atitle><jtitle>Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery</jtitle><addtitle>ATCS</addtitle><date>2015-01-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>305</spage><epage>313</epage><pages>305-313</pages><issn>1341-1098</issn><eissn>2186-1005</eissn><abstract>Purpose: In 2014, the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) guidelines were largely revised with regard to the selection of prosthetic valves. (1) A mechanical prosthesis is reasonable for aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) in patients less than 60 years of age, (2) A bioprosthesis is reasonable in patients more than 70 years of age, and (3) Either a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve is reasonable in patients between 60 and 70 years of age.Japan faces the unprecedented population aging, and moreover, the average life expectancy is longer among the Japanese than the Westerners. In Japan, whether this choice is appropriate seems questionable.Methods: This time, with the revision of the AHA/ACC guidelines, it might be necessary to take into consideration the average life expectancy of Japanese people and revise the Japanese guidelines accordingly.Results: We should consider whether 60–70 years should be set as a gray zone regarding the age criteria for choosing biological valves, or if the age should be set higher relative to that specified in the western guidelines, given the longer Japanese life expectancy.Conclusion: We believe that the development of unique, Japanese guidelines for the selection of prosthetic valves will allow us to provide appropriate selection and treatment for each patient.</abstract><cop>Japan</cop><pub>The Editorial Committee of Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery</pub><pmid>26062580</pmid><doi>10.5761/atcs.ra.15-00134</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1341-1098 |
ispartof | Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2015, Vol.21(4), pp.305-313 |
issn | 1341-1098 2186-1005 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4904864 |
source | J-STAGE Free; MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
subjects | Age Factors Bioprosthesis Evidence-Based Medicine Heart Valve Diseases - surgery Heart Valve Prosthesis Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation - methods Humans Japan Practice Guidelines as Topic Prosthesis Design prosthetic valve Review Risk Factors Treatment Outcome United States valve replacement |
title | Selection of Prosthetic Valve and Evidence—Need for the Development of Japan’s Own Guidelines |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T22%3A52%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Selection%20of%20Prosthetic%20Valve%20and%20Evidence%E2%80%94Need%20for%20the%20Development%20of%20Japan%E2%80%99s%20Own%20Guidelines&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20Thoracic%20and%20Cardiovascular%20Surgery&rft.au=Sezai,%20Akira&rft.date=2015-01-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=305&rft.epage=313&rft.pages=305-313&rft.issn=1341-1098&rft.eissn=2186-1005&rft_id=info:doi/10.5761/atcs.ra.15-00134&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1705732833%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1705732833&rft_id=info:pmid/26062580&rfr_iscdi=true |