CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Evaluation and Management of Nonculprit Lesions in STEMI Circulating MicroRNAs and Monocyte-Platelet Aggregate Formation in Acute Coronary Syndrome Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes: From Pathogenesis to the Fine Line Between Bleeding and Ischemic Risk Major trials in coronary intervention from 2018 Association Between Collateral Circulation and Myocardial Viability Evaluated by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Coronary Artery Chronic Total Occlusion Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes Epinephrine Versus Norepinephrine for Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock Risk Factors Associated With Major Cardiovascular Events 1 Year After Acute Myocardial Infarction Management of Myocardial Revascularization Failure: An Expert Consensus Document of the EAPCI

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.