CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Osteoarthritis risk is reduced after treatment with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel: a propensity score matching analysis Meta-Analysis of Comparison of 5-Year Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery in the Era of Drug-eluting Stents Two-year outcomes following unprotected left main stenting with first vs new-generation drug-eluting stents: the FINE registry. EuroIntervention. Diagnostic accuracy of cardiac positron emission tomography versus single photon emission computed tomography for coronary artery disease: a bivariate meta-analysis Valve‐in‐Valve for Degenerated Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Valve‐in‐Valve for Degenerated Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses: A 3‐Center Comparison of Hemodynamic and 1‐Year Outcome Second vs. First generation drug eluting stents in multiple vessel disease and left main stenosis: Two-year follow-up of the observational, prospective, controlled, and multicenter ERACI IV registry Clinical Outcome After DK Crush Versus Culotte Stenting of Distal Left Main Bifurcation Lesions: The 3-Year Follow-Up Results of the DKCRUSH-III Study Effects of Icosapent Ethyl on Total Ischemic Events: From REDUCE-IT Long-term outcomes following mini-crush versus culotte stenting for the treatment of unprotected left main disease: insights from the Milan and New-Tokyo (MITO) registry Early Rhythm-Control Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Editorial2020 Apr 6;S0828-282X(20)30316-0.

JOURNAL:Can J Cardiol. Article Link

Precision Medicine in TAVR: How to Select the Right Device for the Right Patient

G Marquis-Gravel, S Vemulapalli, AW Asgar et al. Keywords: patient selection; TAVR

ABSTRACT

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) represents a first-line option for the treatment of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis across the entire spectrum of surgical risks. Given the expected growth of TAVR procedures in low-risk patients, many factors other than the primary endpoints of pivotal TAVR trials (either death, or the composite of death or stroke) need to be considered during the selection of a treatment strategy. Such factors include the risk of procedural complications (permanent pacemaker implantation, stroke, new-onset atrial fibrillation, vascular complications, etc), device hemodynamic performance and durability (paravalvular leak [PVL], reinterventions), indication for antithrombotic therapy, and patient quality of life. The pivotal TAVR trials have indicated that some complications with TAVR vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) vary according to the device under study. For example, rates of permanent pacemaker implantation were higher with TAVR vs SAVR in trials evaluating self-expanding valves, but not in the those evaluating balloon-expandable valves. TAVR represents a suitable option for all risk groups, but how do we personalise care and select the most appropriate device for our patients?