4.6 Review

Sex-Specific Considerations in Degenerative Aortic Stenosis for Female-Tailored Transfemoral Aortic Valve Implantation Management

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION
Volume 11, Issue 19, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.121.025944

Keywords

aortic stenosis; clinical management; device selection; sex differences; transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Funding

  1. Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The impact of sex on degenerative aortic stenosis, particularly in the context of TAVI, is still unclear. Women appear to have favorable outcomes with TAVI but also higher rates of complications such as bleeding, vascular problems, and stroke. Tailored planning and management strategies based on sex could potentially improve clinical outcomes in TAVI.
The impact of sex on pathophysiological processes, clinical presentation, treatment options, as well as outcomes of degenerative aortic stenosis remain poorly understood. Female patients are well represented in transfemoral aortic valve implantation (TAVI) trials and appear to derive favorable outcomes with TAVI. However, higher incidences of major bleeding, vascular complications, and stroke have been reported in women following TAVI. The anatomical characteristics and pathophysiological features of aortic stenosis in women might guide a tailored planning of the percutaneous approach. We highlight whether a sex-based TAVI management strategy might impact on clinical outcomes. This review aimed to evaluate the impact of sex from diagnosis to treatment of degenerative aortic stenosis, discussing the latest evidence on epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, therapeutic options, and outcomes. Furthermore, we focused on technical sex-oriented considerations in TAVI including the preprocedural screening, device selection, implantation strategy, and postprocedural management.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available