Why the study?
What are the advantages, disadvantages, and prognostic impacts of allografts compared with other substitutes for aortic valve and root replacement?
What are the advantages, disadvantages, and prognostic impacts of allografts compared with other substitutes for aortic valve and root replacement?
A 40-year review of allografts for aortic valve replacement indicates that initial high expectations have not been fully met, necessitating careful comparison with other valve substitutes.
Temper expectations for allografts in aortic replacement; leaves open optimal substitute selection.
Allografts were introduced in the early 1960s for the replacement of the aortic valve and regarded at the time as a close-to-perfect valve substitute. However, over the past 40 years it has become evident that not all of the high expectations could be met. This review summarizes the past 40 years of clinical experience with allografts for aortic valve replacement, describes the advantages and disadvantages of allografts compared with other aortic valve substitutes and their impact on patient prognosis, and discusses the future role of allografts for the replacement of the aortic valve or root.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takkenberg et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: