CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Abstract

Recommended Article

A Controlled Trial of Rivaroxaban After Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement 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 Minimalist transcatheter aortic valve replacement: The new standard for surgeons and cardiologists using transfemoral access? Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Multivalvular Heart Disease 2-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients Determinants and Impact of Heart Failure Readmission Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Reduced Leaflet Motion after Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement Prognostic implications of baseline 6‐min walk test performance in intermediate risk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement

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.