CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Abstract

Recommended Article

Left Ventricular Rapid Pacing Via the Valve Delivery Guidewire in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Rationale and design of a randomized clinical trial comparing safety and efficacy of Myval transcatheter heart valve versus contemporary transcatheter heart valves in patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis: the LANDMARK trial Incidence and Outcomes of Surgical Bailout During TAVR : Insights From the STS/ACC TVT Registry Temporal Trends, Characteristics, and Outcomes of Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Anticoagulation After Surgical or Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement Prevalence and Outcomes of Concomitant Aortic Stenosis and Cardiac Amyloidosis Why and How to Measure Aortic Valve Calcification in Patients With Aortic Stenosis Prognostic Value of Computed Tomography-Derived Extracellular Volume in TAVR Patients With Low-Flow Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis

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 -