Comparison of patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve in transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

IF 2.9 3区医学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL

Expert Review of Medical Devices Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1080/17434440.2023.2184686

Zhongkai Zhu, Tianyuan Xiong, Mao Chen

{"title":"Comparison of patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve in transcatheter aortic valve implantation.","authors":"Zhongkai Zhu, Tianyuan Xiong, Mao Chen","doi":"10.1080/17434440.2023.2184686","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a safe and effective alternative to surgery for aortic stenosis (AS). However, there are still differences in the procedural process and outcome of bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) treated with TAVI compared with tricuspid aortic valve.Areas covered: This review paper aims to summarize the main characteristics and clinical evidence of TAVI in patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves and compare the outcomes of TAVI procedure.Expert opinion: The use of TAVI in patients with BAV has shown similar clinical outcomes compared with tricuspid aortic valve. The efficacy of TAVI for challenging BAV anatomies remains a concern due to the lack of randomized trials. Detailed preprocedural planning is of great importance in low-surgical-risk BAV patients. A better understanding of which subtypes of BAV anatomy are at greater risk for adverse outcomes can potentially benefit the selection of TAVI or open-heart surgery in low surgical risk AS patients.","PeriodicalId":12330,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Medical Devices","volume":"20 3","pages":"209-220"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Medical Devices","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2023.2184686","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a safe and effective alternative to surgery for aortic stenosis (AS). However, there are still differences in the procedural process and outcome of bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) treated with TAVI compared with tricuspid aortic valve.

Areas covered: This review paper aims to summarize the main characteristics and clinical evidence of TAVI in patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves and compare the outcomes of TAVI procedure.

Expert opinion: The use of TAVI in patients with BAV has shown similar clinical outcomes compared with tricuspid aortic valve. The efficacy of TAVI for challenging BAV anatomies remains a concern due to the lack of randomized trials. Detailed preprocedural planning is of great importance in low-surgical-risk BAV patients. A better understanding of which subtypes of BAV anatomy are at greater risk for adverse outcomes can potentially benefit the selection of TAVI or open-heart surgery in low surgical risk AS patients.

查看原文本刊更多论文

经导管主动脉瓣植入术中二尖瓣与三尖瓣的比较。

背景:经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)已成为治疗主动脉瓣狭窄(as)安全有效的替代方法。然而，与三尖瓣主动脉瓣相比，TAVI治疗双尖瓣主动脉瓣(BAV)的手术过程和结果仍存在差异。涵盖领域:本文旨在总结二尖瓣和三尖瓣主动脉瓣患者TAVI的主要特征和临床证据，并比较TAVI手术的结果。专家意见:与三尖瓣主动脉瓣相比，在BAV患者中使用TAVI显示出相似的临床结果。由于缺乏随机试验，TAVI治疗BAV解剖的有效性仍然值得关注。详细的术前计划对低手术风险的BAV患者非常重要。更好地了解哪些BAV亚型有更大的不良后果风险，可能有利于低手术风险AS患者选择TAVI或心内直视手术。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Expert Review of Medical Devices 医学-工程：生物医学

CiteScore

5.90

自引率

3.20%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The journal serves the device research community by providing a comprehensive body of high-quality information from leading experts, all subject to rigorous peer review. The Expert Review format is specially structured to optimize the value of the information to reader. Comprehensive coverage by each author in a key area of research or clinical practice is augmented by the following sections: Expert commentary - a personal view on the most effective or promising strategies Five-year view - a clear perspective of future prospects within a realistic timescale Key issues - an executive summary cutting to the author''s most critical points In addition to the Review program, each issue also features Medical Device Profiles - objective assessments of specific devices in development or clinical use to help inform clinical practice. There are also Perspectives - overviews highlighting areas of current debate and controversy, together with reports from the conference scene and invited Editorials.