Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Use of bioprosthetic implants for surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVR) has been increasing in the recent years Surgical redo AVRs for failed surgical aortic bioprostheses have been traditionally considered the standard practice; however, in patients with higher surgical risk scores, transcatheter valve-in-valve aortic valve replacements are being commonly performed There is scarcity of data comparing these two approaches in this complex patient cohort Available data suggest that transcatheter ViV aortic valve replacement is generally a safe approach once some caveats are accounted for.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.28003 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!