CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Selection of stenting approach for coronary bifurcation lesions Open sesame technique in percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction Association of Body Mass Index With Lifetime Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Compression of Morbidity Comparative Effectiveness of β-Blocker Use Beyond 3 Years After Myocardial Infarction and Long-Term Outcomes Among Elderly Patients Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing: What Is its Value? Invasive Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Long-term outcomes after myocardial infarction in middle-aged and older patients with congenital heart disease-a nationwide study Refractory Angina: From Pathophysiology to New Therapeutic Nonpharmacological Technologies Another Nail in the Coffin for Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsion in Acute Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock Effects of clopidogrel vs. prasugrel vs. ticagrelor on endothelial function, inflammatory parameters, and platelet function in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing coronary artery stenting: a randomized, blinded, parallel study

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.