CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Natural History of Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection With Spontaneous Angiographic Healing Relations between implementation of new treatments and improved outcomes in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction during the last 20 years: experiences from SWEDEHEART registry 1995 to 2014 OPTIMAL USE OF LIPID-LOWERING THERAPY AFTER ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROMES: A Position Paper endorsed by the International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Evidence and Controversies Contemporary Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Myocardial Infarction in the Absence of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Translational Perspective on Epigenetics in Cardiovascular Disease Coronary CT Angiography and 5-Year Risk of Myocardial Infarction A randomised trial comparing two stent sizing strategies in coronary bifurcation treatment with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds - The Absorb Bifurcation Coronary (ABC) trial Impact of Abnormal Coronary Reactivity on Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Women Phosphoproteomic Analysis of Neonatal Regenerative Myocardium Revealed Important Roles of CHK1 via Activating mTORC1/P70S6K Pathway
|<<... 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 ...>>|

GuidelineJuly 21, 2021

JOURNAL：JAMA Cardiol. Article Link

Guideline Update on Indications for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Based on the 2020 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines for Management of Valvular Heart Disease

TM Sundt; H Jneid et al. Keywords: TAVR; valular heart disease; indication; guideline

ABSTRACT

The continued evolution of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) technology and the results of multiple randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have firmly established this approach as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in the treatment of aortic stenosis in all risk groups. Deciding on TAVI or SAVR depends on patient-specific factors, including technical, procedure-specific contraindications and the balance between estimated life expectancy and anticipated prosthesis durability. These factors pertain to the decision between mechanical and biological prostheses, and if the choice is biological, between SAVR and TAVI. A strong emphasis is now placed on shared decision-making with the patient and involvement of the multidisciplinary heart team. For most patients younger than 65 years, SAVR is recommended, with mechanical valves favored in those younger than 50 years. For those older than 65 years, the perioperative risks of mortality and stroke are lower with transfemoral TAVI compared with SAVR, but the risks of paravalvular leak, a pacemaker requirement, and vascular complications are higher.
>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