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: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
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
The range of valve choices available to the cardiac surgeon for placement in the pulmonary position continues to expand. This article will provide a brief compendium of the most clinically relevant among these choices and review the contemporary literature regarding their relative durability as well as risk factors for structural valve deterioration and reintervention. The unique advantages and disadvantages of each of these valve choices will be discussed as they pertain to unique patient-specific factors, including patient size and the anatomy of the right ventricular outflow tract, that inform the choice of one prosthesis over another. Finally, general principles regarding the approach to valve choice, and future directions will be discussed.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.semtcvs.2022.01.006 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!