Prosthetic Heart Valves

  • John Chambers


Implanting a prosthetic heart valve is an important treatment for valve lesions not suitable for repair. Most valves implanted in the modern era are biological, but the bileaflet mechanical valve is the most commonly implanted type of mechanical design. This chapter describes: (1) the types of prosthetic valve, (2) the published data guiding the choice between a biological or mechanical valve; (3) the assessment of prosthetic valves using echocardiography; (4) routine clinical management; (5) possible complications and their management.


Prosthetic valves Echocardiography Magnetic resonance Endocarditis Thrombosis Bleeding 


  1. 1.
    Zűlke LJ, Steer AC. Estimates of the global burden of rheumatic disease. Global Heart. 2013;8:189–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zion market research. Prosthetic heart valve market by type (transcatheter, tissue and mechanical): global industry perspective, comprehensive analysis, size, share, growth, segment, trends and forecast, 2015–2021. ZMR-234 published 13 Oct 2016.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lancellotti P, Rosenhek R, Pibarot P, et al. Heart valve clinics: organisation, structure and experiences. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:1597–606.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chambers JB, Prendergast B, Iung B, et al. Standards defining a ‘Heart Valve Centre’: ESC Working Group on valvular heart disease and European Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery Viewpoint. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:2177–83. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chambers JB, Prendergast B, Iung B, et al. Standards defining a ‘Heart Valve Centre’: ESC Working Group on valvular heart disease and European Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery Viewpoint. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;52:418–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jamieson WR. Update on technologies for cardiac valvular replacement, transcatheter innovations, and reconstructive surgery. Surg Technol Int. 2010;20:255–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koyobashi J. Stentless aortic valve replacement: an update. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2011;7:345–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Luciani GB. Stentless aortic valve replacement: current status and future trends. Expert Rev Cardiovas Ther. 2004;2:127–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klievenik LMA, Bekkers JA, Roos JW, et al. Autograft or allograft aortic valve replacement in young adult patients with congenital aortic valve disease. Europ Heart J. 2008;29:1446–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rubay JE, Buche M, El Khoury GA, et al. The Ross operation: mid-term results. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;67:1355–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sievers HH, Stierle U, Charitos EI, et al. A multicentre evaluation of the autograft procedure for young patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: update on the German Ross Registry. Europ J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;49:212–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mazine A, David TE, Rao V, et al. Long-term outcomes of the Ross procedure versus mechanical aortic valve replacement: propensity matched cohort study. Circulation. 2016;134:576–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Le Guillou V, Bouchart F, Gay A, et al. The Ross procedure in endocarditis: a report of 28 cases. Europ J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;45:153–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karaskov A, Sharifulia A, Zheleznev S, et al. Results of the Ross procedure in adults: a single-centre experience of 741 operations. Europ J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;49:e97–e104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Phan K, Tsai Y-C, Niranjan N, et al. Sutureless aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;4(2):100–11. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Al-Adhami A, Al-Attar N. Recent advances in aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. F1000Res. 2016;5:F1000 Faculty Rev-2542.
  17. 17.
    Meco M, Miceli A, Montisci A, et al. Sutureless aortic valve replacement versus traditional valve implantation: a meta-analysis of comparative studies using propensity score matching. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2018;26:202–9. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kheredvar A, Groves EM, Dasi LP, et al. Emerging trends in heart valve engineering: part 1. Solutions for future. Ann Biomed Eng. 2015;43(4):833–43. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zilla P, Brink J, Human P, Bezuidenhout D. Prosthetic heart valves: catering for the few. Biomaterials. 2008;29:385–406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Redman M, King A, Watson C, King D. What is CRISPR/Cas9? Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed. 2016;101:213–5. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Qian Z, Wang K, Liu S, et al. Quantitative prediction of paravalvular leak in transcatheter aortic valve replacement based on tissue-mimicking 3D printing. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10:719–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, et al. 2017 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Europ Heart J. 2017;38:2739–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Korteland NM, Fras FJ, van Hout FM, et al. Prosthetic aortic valve selection: current patient experience, preferences and knowledge. Open Heart. 2015;2(1):e000237. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kohlmann S, Rimington H, Weinman J. Profiling illness perceptions to identify patients at-risk for decline in health status after heart valve replacement. J Psychosom Res. 2012;72:427–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brown JM, O’Brien SM, Wu C, Sikora JAH, Griffith BP, Gammie JS. Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:82–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bridgewater B, Kinsman R, Walton P, et al. Demonstrating quality: the sixth National Adult Cardiac Surgery Database Report. Dendrite Clinical Systems Ltd.: Henley-on-Thames; 2009.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Saleeb SF, Newburger JW, Geva T, et al. Accelerated degeneration of a bovine pericardial bioprosthetic aortic valve in children and young adults. Circulation. 2014;130:51–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Grunkemeier GL, Li H-H, Naftel DC, Starr A, Rahimtoola SH. Long-term performance of heart valve prostheses. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2000;25:73–154.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chan V, Malas T, Lapierre H, et al. Reoperation of left heart valve bioprostheses according to age at implantation. Circulation. 2011;124(Suppl 1):S75–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bleiziffer S, Erlebach M, Simonato M, et al. Incidence, prediction and clinical outcomes of residual stenosis after aortic valve-in-valve. Heart. 2018;104:828034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    North RA, Sadler L, Stewart AW, McCowan LME, Kerr AR, White HD. Long-term survival and valve-related complications in young women with cardiac valve replacements. Circulation. 1999;99:2669–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Remenyi B, Webb R, Gentles T, Russell P, Finucane K, Lee M, Wilson N. Improved long-term survival for rheumatic mitral valve repair compared to replacement in the young. World J Pediatr Congen Heart Surg. 2012;4:155–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bocchi EA, Guimaraes G, Tarasoutshi F, et al. Cardiomyopathy, adult valve disease and heart failure in South America. Heart. 2009;95:181–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chambers J, Ray S, Prendergast B, et al. Specialist valve clinics: recommendations from the British Heart Valve Society working group on improving quality in the delivery of care for patients with heart valve disease. Heart. 2013;99:1714–6. Scholar
  35. 35.
    Parkin D, Chambers J. Routine follow-up for patients with prosthetic valves: the value of a nurse-led valve clinic. Brit J Cardiol. 2012;19:204–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mahey IR, Dougall H, Buckley A, Jeffrey RR, Walton S, Jennings KP. Routine hospital based follow up for patients with mechanical valve prostheses: is it worthwhile? Heart. 1999;82:520–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chambers J, Garbi M, Nieman K, et al. Appropriateness criteria for the use of cardiovascular imaging in heart valve disease in adults: report of literature review and current practice. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;18:489–98. Scholar
  38. 38.
    Puskas J, Gerdisch M, Nichols D, et al. Reduced anticoagulation after mechanical aortic valve replacement: interim results from the Prospective Randomized On-X Valve Anticoagulation Clinical Trial Randomized Food and Drugs Administration Investigational Device Exemption Trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147:1202.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    You JHS, Chan FWH, Wong RSM, Cheng G. Is INR between 2.0 and 3.0 the optimal level for Chinese patients on warfarin therapy for moderate-intensity anticoagulation? Brit J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;59:582–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zhang L, Zheng X, Long Y, et al. D-dimer to guide the intensity of anticoagulation in Chinese patients after mechanical heart valve replacement: a randomised controlled trial. J Thromb Haemost. 2017;15:1934–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Oxenham H, Bloomfield P, Wheatley DJ, et al. Twenty year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. Heart. 2003;89:715–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(22):e57–185. Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lancellotti P, Pibarot P, Chambers J, et al. Recommendations for the imaging assessment of prosthetic heart valves. A report from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging endorsed by the Chinese Society of Echocardiography. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;17:589–90. Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F, et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012). Eur Heart J. 2012;33:2451–95.4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zoghbi WA, Chambers JB, Dumesnil JG, et al. American Society of Echocardiography recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with two-dimensional and Doppler echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009;22:975–1014.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Chambers J, Rajani R, Hankins M, Cook R. The peak to mean pressure drop ratio: a new method of assessing aortic stenosis. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2005;18:674–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Haghi D, Kaden JJ, Suselbeck T, et al. Validation of the peak to mean pressure decrease ratio as a new method of assessing aortic stenosis using the Gorlin formula and the cardiovascular magnetic resonance-based hybrid method. Echocardiography. 2007;24:335–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ben Zekry S, Saad RM, Ozkan M, et al. Flow acceleration time and ratio of acceleration time to ejection time for prosthetic aortic valve function. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:1161–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Valve prosthesis-patient mismatch, 1978 to 2011: from original concept to compelling evidence. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1136–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rosenhek R, Binder T, Maurer G, Baumgartner H. Normal values for Doppler echocardiographic assessment of heart valve prostheses. J Am Soc Echo. 2003;16:1116–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lancellotti P, Tribouilloy C, Hagendorff A, et al. European Association of Echocardiography recommendations for the assessment of valvular regurgitation. Part 1: aortic and pulmonary regurgitation (native valve disease). Eur J Echocardiogr. 2010;11:223–44.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lancellotti P, Tribouilloy C, Hagendorff A, et al. European Association of Echocardiography recommendations for the assessment of valvular regurgitation. Part 2: mitral and tricuspid regurgitation (native valve disease). Eur J Echocardiogr. 2010;11:307–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Garbi M, Chambers J, Lancellotti P. Valve stress echocardiography: a guide for referral, procedure, reporting and clinical implementation of results from the HAVEC Group. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:724–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lancellotti P, Karsera D, Tumminello G, Lebois F, Pierard LA. Determinants of an abnormal response to exercise in patients with asymptomatic valvular aortic stenosis. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2008;9:338–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Reis G, Motta MS, Barbosa MM, Esteves WA, Souza SF, Bocchi EA. Dobutamine stress echocardiography for noninvasive assessment and risk stratification of patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:393–401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Teshima H, Hayashida N, Yano H, et al. Obstruction of St Jude Medical valves in the aortic position: histology and immunohistochemistry of pannus. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;126:401–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Chambers J, Myerson S, Rajani R, Morgan-Hughes G, Dweck M, on behalf of the British Heart Valve Society. Multimodality imaging in heart valve disease. Open Heart. 2016;3:e000330. Scholar
  58. 58.
    Feuchtner GM, Stolzmann P, Dichtl W, et al. Multislice computed tomography in infective endocarditis: comparison with transesophageal echocardiography and intraoperative findings. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:436–44.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Fagman E, Perrotta S, Bech-Hanssen O, et al. ECG-gated computed tomography: a new role for patients with suspected aortic prosthetic valve endocarditis. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:2407–14.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Saby L, Laas O, Habib G, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography for diagnosis of prosthetic valve endocarditis: increased valvular 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake as a novel major criterion. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:2374–82.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes MJ, et al. 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis: the task force for the management of infective endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) endorsed by: European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). Eur Heart J. 2015;36:3075–128. PubMed PMID: 26320109.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Akins CW, Miller DC, Turina MI, et al. Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;135:732–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Stassano P, Di Tommaso L, Monaco M, et al. Aortic valve replacement. A prospective randomized evaluation of mechanical versus biological valves in patients ages 55 to 70 years. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1862–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    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;36:1152–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Glaser N, Jackson V, Holzmann MJ, Franco-Cereceda A, Sartipy U. Aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs biological prostheses inpatients aged 50-69 years. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2658–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Goldstone AB, Chiu P, Baiocchi M, et al. Mechanical or biological prostheses for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement. NEJM. 2017;377:1847–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Zhao DF, Seco M, Wu JJ, et al. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in middle-aged adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102:315–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Chikwe J, Chiang YP, Egorova NN, Itagaki S, Adams DH. Survival and outcomes following bioprosthetic vs mechanical mitral valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 69 years. JAMA. 2015;313:1435–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Briffa N, Chambers JB. Biological valves in younger patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. A word of caution. Circulation. 2017;135:1101–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Alam M, Goldstein S, Lakier JB. Echocardiographic changes in the thickness of porcine valves with time. Chest. 1981;79:663–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Rahimtoola SH. Choice of prosthetic heart valve in adults. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:2413–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Lorusso R, Gelsomino S, Luca F, et al. Type 2 diabetes mellitus is associated with faster degeneration of bioprosthetic valves: results from a propensity score-matched Italian multicentre study. Circulation. 2012;125:604–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Briand M, Pibarot P, Despres J-P, et al. Metabolic syndrome is associated with faster degeneration of bioprosthetic valves. Circulation. 2006;114:I-512–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Bourgignon T, Bouquiaux-Stablo A-L, Candolfi P, Loardi C, May M-A, El-Khoury R, et al. Very long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards perimount valve in aortic position. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:831–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Johnston DR, Soltesz EG, Vakil N, et al. Long-term durability of bioprosthetic aortic valves: implications from 12,569 implants. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:1239–47.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Rizzoli G, Bottio T, Thiene G, Toscano G, Casarotto D. Long-term durability of the Hancock II porcine bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;126:66–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Valfre C, Ius P, Minniti G, et al. The fate of Hancock II porcine valve recipients 25 years after implant. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010;38:141–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R, Simard S, Doyle D, Pibarot P. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2003;108:983–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Blackstone EH, Cosgrove DM, Jamieson WR, et al. Prosthesis size and long-term survival after aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;126:783–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Milano AD, De Carlo M, Mecozzi G, D’Alfonso A, Scioti G, Nardi C, Bortolotti U. Clinical outcomes in patients with 19-mm and 21-mm St Jude aortic prostheses: comparison at long-term follow-up. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;73:37–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Ruel M, Al-Faleh H, Kulik A, Chan KL, Mesana TG, Burwash IG. Prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement predominantly affects patients with preexisting left ventricular dysfunction: effect on survival, freedom from heart failure, and left ventricular mass regression. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;131:1036–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Flameng W, Herregods M-C, Vercalsteren M, Herijgers P, Bogaerts K, Meuris B. Prosthesis-patient mismatch predicts structural valve degeneration in bioprosthetic heart valves. Circulation. 2010;121:2123–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Magne J, Mathieu P, Dumesnil JG, Tanne D, Dagenais F, Doyle D, Pibarot P. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on survival after mitral valve replacement. Circulation. 2007;115:1417–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Li M, Dumesnil JG, Mathieu P, Pibarot P. Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on pulmonary arterial pressure after mitral valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:1034–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Heneghan C, Alonso-Coello P, Garcia-alamino JM, Perera R, Meats E, Glasziou P. Self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2006;367:404–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Thornhill M, Jones S, Prendergast B, Baddour LM, Chambers JB, Lockhart PB, Dayer MJ. Quantifying infective endocarditis risk in patients with predisposing cardiac conditions. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:586–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Ostergard L, Valeur N, Ihlemann N, et al. Incidence of infective endocarditis among patients considered at high risk. Eur Heart J. 2018;39(7):623–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Wang A, Athan A, Pappas PA, et al. Comtemporary clinical profile and outcome of prosthetic valve endocarditis. JAMA. 2007;297:1354–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Piper C, Körfer R, Horstkotte D. Prosthetic valve endocarditis. Heart. 2001;85:590–3.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Ali A, Halstead JC, Cafferty F, et al. Are stentless valves superior to modern stented valves? A prospective randomized trial. Circulation. 2006;114(Suppl I):I-535–40.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Levine DP. Clinical trial report: is it safe to continue anticoagulation therapy in patients with infective endocarditis? Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2010;12:231–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Truninger K, Jost CHA, Seifert B, et al. Long term follow up of prosthetic valve endocarditis: what characteristics identify patients who were treated successfully with antibiotics alone? Heart. 1999;82:714–20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Leontyev S, Borger MA, Modi P, et al. Redo aortic valve surgery: influence of prosthetic valve endocarditis on outcomes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:99–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Edwards M-B, Ratnatunga CP, Dore CJ, Taylor KM. Thirty-day mortality and long-term survival following surgery for prosthetic endocarditis: a study from the UK heart valve registry. Europ J Cardiothoracic Surg. 1998;14:156–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Chambers
    • 1
  1. 1.Guy’s and St. Thomas HospitalsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations