CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Abstract

Recommended Article

Short Length of Stay After Elective Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Is Not Associated With Increased Early or Late Readmission Risk Early Versus Standard Discharge After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Predictors and Clinical Outcomes of Next-Day Discharge After Minimalist Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement 5-Year Outcomes Comparing Surgical Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Multivalvular Heart Disease Early Surgery or Conservative Care for Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis Conscious Sedation Versus General Anesthesia for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Variation in Practice and Outcomes

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 -