CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Abstract

Recommended Article

Evolving concepts in the management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation Clinical Impact of Valvular Heart Disease in Elderly Patients Admitted for Acute Coronary Syndrome: Insights From the Elderly-ACS 2 Study Elevated Lipoprotein(a) in Familial Hypercholesterolemia and its Role in the Progression of Calcific Aortic Stenosis Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients Health Status after Transcatheter vs. Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients with Aortic Stenosis Feasibility of Coronary Access and Aortic Valve Reintervention in Low-Risk TAVR Patients 2017 AHA/ACC Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines Coronary Access After TAVR With a Self-Expanding Bioprosthesis: Insights From Computed Tomography
|<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...>>|

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 -














>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top