CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Abstract

Recommended Article

Thrombotic Versus Bleeding Risk After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: JACC Review Topic of the Week Comparison of 1-Year Pre- And Post-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Hospitalization Rates: A Population-Based Cohort Study Impact of myocardial fibrosis on left ventricular remodelling, recovery, and outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in different haemodynamic subtypes of severe aortic stenosis Relationship between B-type natriuretic peptide and invasive haemodynamics in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement vs Surgical Replacement in Patients With Pure Aortic Insufficiency Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement During Pregnancy Prognostic implications of baseline 6‐min walk test performance in intermediate risk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement Randomized Evaluation of TriGuard 3 Cerebral Embolic Protection After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: REFLECT II

Original Research

JOURNAL:Circulation. Article Link

ACC19 Late Breaking Science and Simultaneous Publications

CBSMD


AMI without Cardiogenic Shock

Study Design: multicenter, prospective, randomized exploratory safety and feasibility trial, 50 patients (1:1 randomization) with anterior STEMI to LV unloading by using the Impella CP followed by immediate reperfusion (U-IR) versus delayed reperfusion after 30 minutes of unloading (U-DR).

Study Endpoints: The primary safety outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events at 30 days. Efficacy parameters included the assessment of infarct size by using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

Editorial - Percutaneous Support Devices for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention


AMI without Cardiogenic Shock

Study Design: multicenter, randomized, open-label trial

Study Results: Follow-up was completed for 591 of 600 patients (98.5%). Mortality was not different between the IABP and the control group (66.3% versus 67.0%; relative risk, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.88–1.11; P=0.98). There were also no differences in recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke, repeat revascularization, or rehospitalization for cardiac reasons (all P>0.05). Survivors’ quality of life as assessed by the EuroQol 5D questionnaire and the New York Heart Association class did not differ between groups.

Editorial -