TY - JOUR
T1 - Evolving Devices and Material in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
T2 - What to Use and for Whom
AU - Chiarito, Mauro
AU - Spirito, Alessandro
AU - Nicolas, Johny
AU - Selberg, Alexandra
AU - Stefanini, Giulio
AU - Colombo, Antonio
AU - Reimers, Bernhard
AU - Kini, Annapoorna
AU - Sharma, Samin K.
AU - Dangas, George D.
AU - Mehran, Roxana
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 by the authors.
PY - 2022/8
Y1 - 2022/8
N2 - Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the treatment of aortic stenosis, providing a viable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients deemed to be at prohibitive surgical risk, but also for selected patients at intermediate or low surgical risk. Nonetheless, there still exist uncertainties regarding the optimal management of patients undergoing TAVR. The selection of the optimal bioprosthetic valve for each patient represents one of the most challenging dilemmas for clinicians, given the large number of currently available devices. Limited follow-up data from landmark clinical trials comparing TAVR with SAVR, coupled with the typically elderly and frail population of patients undergoing TAVR, has led to inconclusive data on valve durability. Recommendations about the use of one device over another in given each patient’s clinical and procedural characteristics are largely based on expert consensus. This review aims to evaluate the available evidence on the performance of different devices in the presence of specific clinical and anatomic features, with a focus on patient, procedural, and device features that have demonstrated a relevant impact on the risk of poor hemodynamic valve performance and adverse clinical events.
AB - Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the treatment of aortic stenosis, providing a viable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients deemed to be at prohibitive surgical risk, but also for selected patients at intermediate or low surgical risk. Nonetheless, there still exist uncertainties regarding the optimal management of patients undergoing TAVR. The selection of the optimal bioprosthetic valve for each patient represents one of the most challenging dilemmas for clinicians, given the large number of currently available devices. Limited follow-up data from landmark clinical trials comparing TAVR with SAVR, coupled with the typically elderly and frail population of patients undergoing TAVR, has led to inconclusive data on valve durability. Recommendations about the use of one device over another in given each patient’s clinical and procedural characteristics are largely based on expert consensus. This review aims to evaluate the available evidence on the performance of different devices in the presence of specific clinical and anatomic features, with a focus on patient, procedural, and device features that have demonstrated a relevant impact on the risk of poor hemodynamic valve performance and adverse clinical events.
KW - aortic regurgitation
KW - aortic stenosis
KW - balloon-expandable valve
KW - self-expanding valve
KW - transcatheter aortic valve replacement
KW - transcatheter heart valve
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85136459032&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/jcm11154445
DO - 10.3390/jcm11154445
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85136459032
SN - 2077-0383
VL - 11
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
JF - Journal of Clinical Medicine
IS - 15
M1 - 4445
ER -