4.6 Article

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis

期刊

JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS
卷 3, 期 11, 页码 1122-1125

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2010.08.016

关键词

aortic valve; bicuspid; stenosis; transcatheter

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives We evaluated transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in high-risk patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis. Background TAVI shows promise in the treatment of severe stenosis of triscupid aortic valves, especially in high-risk patients. However, BAV stenosis has been considered a contraindication to TAVI. Methods Eleven patients (age 52 to 90 years) with symptomatic severe BAV stenosis underwent TAVI at 3 Canadian tertiary hospitals between May 2006 and April 2010. All patients were considered high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement. Edwards-SAPIEN transcatheter heart valves (Edwards Lifesciences, Inc., Irvine, California) were used. Transfemoral or transapical access was selected, depending on the adequacy of femoral access. Results Access was transfemoral in 7 patients and transapical in 4 patients. There were no intraprocedural complications. Significant symptomatic and hemodynamic improvement was observed in 10 of 11 patients. Baseline aortic valve area of 0.65 +/- 0.17 cm(2) and mean transaortic pressure gradient of 41 +/- 22.4 mm Hg were improved to 1.45 +/- 0.3 cm(2) and 13.4 +/- 5.7 mm Hg, respectively. Two patients had moderate perivalvular leaks. At the 30-day follow-up there were 2 deaths due to multi-system failure in 2 transapical patients. In 1 patient an undersized, suboptimally positioned, unstable valve required late conversion to open surgery. Conclusions TAVI in selected high-risk patients with severe BAV stenosis can be successfully performed with acceptable clinical outcomes but will require further evaluation. (J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2010;3:1122-5) (C) 2010 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据