Abstract
Much has changed since the introduction of surgical valve repair in the 1950s, from the introduction bioprosthetic valves to percutaneous approaches to valve repair. Yet, despite substantial advancements in bioprosthetic valve technology, there has been a lack of direct, independent comparison between bioprosthetic mitral valve devices, accompanied by a marked heterogeneity in approaches to the sizing and selection thereof. Wang et al. have hence endeavored to evaluate, head-to-head, the technical successes and biomechanical outcomes associated with three different bioprosthetic mitral valves (Epic; Abbott; Mosaic; Medtronic; Mitris Resilia; Edwards Lifesciences) in a porcine model, under standardized hemodynamic and anatomical conditions. With a robust experimental technique, they have made clear the heterogeneity in both sizing and biomechanical properties between bioprosthetic mitral valves, and have further emphasized the need for a uniform approach to the manufacturing and sizing of bioprosthetic valves.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
