CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

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 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 Coronary calcium as a predictor of coronary events in four racial or ethnic groups Impact of myocardial fibrosis on left ventricular remodelling, recovery, and outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in different haemodynamic subtypes of severe aortic stenosis Comparison of 1-Year Pre- And Post-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Hospitalization Rates: A Population-Based Cohort Study Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes Long-term results after PCI of unprotected distal left main coronary artery stenosis: the Bifurcations Bad Krozingen (BBK)-Left Main Registry Thrombotic Versus Bleeding Risk After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: JACC Review Topic of the Week Defining a new standard for IVUS optimized drug eluting stent implantation: the PRAVIO study Association Between Depressive Symptoms and Incident Cardiovascular Diseases
|<<... 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 ...>>|

Review ArticleSeptember 9, 2020

JOURNAL：JAMA Cardiol. Article Link

Considerations for Optimal Device Selection in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Review

BE Claessen, GHL Tang, AS Kini et al. Keywords: TAVR; device selection; RCT

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE - Aortic valve stenosis (AS) is the most common manifestation of acquired valvular heart disease in developed countries. Several large-scale randomized clinical trials investigating the entire spectrum of patients with severe symptomatic AS from low to prohibitive risk have established transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as a safe and effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement.


OBSERVATIONS - There are currently only 3 types of TAVR devices commercially available in the US, but several other valve types are undergoing clinical trials in the US. Because of fundamental differences in engineering features, each TAVR device type has specific strengths and limitations. This review aims to provide an overview of design features and clinical outcomes of various TAVR devices that are either commercially available or undergoing clinical investigation.


CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE - Given the lack of large-scale head-to-head comparisons of various TAVR devices and the rapid development of new device iterations, there is insufficient evidence to claim superiority of one device type over another. Nonetheless, as each TAVR device has unique design characteristics, certain patient-related and anatomy-related factors may slightly favor one or several particular designs.

>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 注册

> CBS 2019 会议日程

> CBS 2019 学术征集

> CBS 2019 热点

 CBSMD

> CBSMD 网站注册

> 教育中心

> 荐读文献

> Top 10 阅读文献

> 文献导读
CBS 2019 CBS 2019 主席团 教育中心 科研动态
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top