CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Abstract

Recommended Article

The Year in Cardiovascular Medicine 2020: Valvular Heart Disease: Discussing the Year in Cardiovascular Medicine for 2020 in the field of valvular heart disease is Professor Helmut Baumgartner and Dr Javier Bermejo. Mark Nicholls reports Comparison of Safety and Periprocedural Complications of Transfemoral Aortic Valve Replacement Under Local Anaesthesia: Minimalist Versus Complete Heart Team Risk of Coronary Obstruction and Feasibility of Coronary Access After Repeat Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Self-Expanding Evolut Valve: A Computed Tomography Simulation Study Left Ventricular Rapid Pacing Via the Valve Delivery Guidewire in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness and Safety of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-to-Intermediate Surgical Risk Cohort Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis Transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valve Relationship Between Hospital Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Volume and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes
|<<... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...>>|

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