CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Abstract

Recommended Article

Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis 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 Predictors and Clinical Outcomes of Next-Day Discharge After Minimalist Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Conscious Sedation Versus General Anesthesia for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Variation in Practice and Outcomes Long-Term Durability of Transcatheter Heart Valves: Insights From Bench Testing to 25 Years Contemporary real-world outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in 141,905 low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients Early Surgery or Conservative Care for Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis

Review Article2020 Sep 21;S0033-0620(20)30158-4.

JOURNAL:Prog Cardiovasc Dis. Article Link

Mechanical circulatory support devices in advanced heart failure: 2020 and beyond

JL Vieira, HO Ventura, MR Mehra et al. Keywords: advanced heart failure; cardiogenic shock; hemocompatibility; INTERMACS; LVAD; left ventricular assist device; mechanical circulatory support

ABSTRACT

Substantial progress in the field of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has expanded the treatment options for patients with advanced-stage heart failure (HF). Currently available MCS devices can be implanted percutaneously or surgically. They can also be configured to support the left, right, or both ventricles, offering varying levels of circulatory support. Short-term temporary MCS devices are primarily used in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention, cardiogenic shock, and post-cardiac arrest, while durable left ventricular assist systems (LVAS) are increasingly utilized either as a bridge-to-transplant, bridge to decision, or as a destination therapy. The evolution from older pulsatile devices to continuous-flow LVAS and the incorporation of smaller pumps, with no valves, fewer moving parts, and improved hemocompatibility has translated into improved clinical outcomes, greater durability, fewer adverse events, and reduced overall cost of care. However, despite marked advances in device design and clinical management, determining MCS candidacy is often difficult and requires the integration of clinical, biomarker, imaging, exercise, and hemodynamic data. This review aims to provide a summary of the current use of short-term and durable MCS devices in the treatment of advanced-stage HF, highlighting several aspects of LVAS support and the challenges that remain.