This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
IntroductionSince TAVR was approved for lower-risk aortic stenosis (AS) patients, managing post-implantation conduction disturbances has become crucial, especially with self-expanding heart valves (SEV).
We know TAVI is in the striking distance , to literally take over most aortic valve interventions. While the numbers increase, still the debate between SAVR and TAVR is riddled with speculation, skepticism, and absolute confidence. Thanks to the hardware, expertise, and motivation from multiple forces.
BACKGROUND:Current guidelines recommend surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and unfavorable iliofemoral access. At 30 days, the SAVR group showed a higher rate of the primary composite outcome compared with the TC-TAVR group (12.6% versus 4.3%; hazard ratio, 2.93 [95% CI, 1.455.94]).
A cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrates the positive economic value of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using Evolut TAVR compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for low-risk patients. The findings showed a strong economic benefit of Evolut TAVR for low-risk patients from a U.S.
Objective Postprocedural ischaemic and bleeding risks after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remain a major concern. We aimed to assess the accuracy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-derived models and the performance of a recalibrated model that included variables more applicable to TAVR.
BackgroundCurrent guidelines and expert consensus recommend lifelong single antiplatelet therapy for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement who have no indication for anticoagulation or dual antiplatelet therapy. Journal of the American Heart Association, Ahead of Print.
Reviewing NOTION study, the Nordic TAVI 10 year follow up has just been released (Ref 1) : Caution : Non-academic content This study reports the long-term outcome in low-risk individuals who required AVR. No doubt ,the Aortic interventional world is applauding and everyone is joining the party. Now, some academic queries ?
SMART 4 ( NCT04722250 ) studied patients with severe aortic stenosis and a small aortic annulus who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). A total of 716 patients underwent TAVR with either a self-expanding supraannular valve or a balloon-expandable valve. vs. 6.2%) and stroke (2.9%
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join thousands of users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content