Heart, lung & circulation · 2014
Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation: a systematic review of literature.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Raval Jwalant, Nagaraja Vinayak, Eslick Guy D, Denniss A Robert
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become an alternative to open surgery in those deemed high risk. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and outcomes of this emerging procedure. We have examined available literature to provide an overview of valve-in-valve implantation using transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in aortic, mitral, pulmonary, tricuspid positions.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Current Contents Connect, Cochrane library, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Web of Science.
RESULTS: Only 61 studies met full criteria and were included the review. This included 31 studies reporting transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation, mitral valve-in-valve implantation (13 studies), tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation (12 studies), and pure native aortic valve regurgitation (nine studies). One of the limitations of this review is that most of the studies included were case reports, together with some case series.
CONCLUSION: Valve-in-valve implantation can be considered as an acceptable alternative to conventional open heart surgery for elderly high-risk surgical patients with bioprosthetic degeneration. Long-term follow-up of treated patients will be necessary to establish the true role of valve-in-valve implantation for bioprosthetic degeneration. Patients should be evaluated on an individual basis until outcomes are proven in large cohort studies or randomised trials.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Current Contents Connect, Cochrane library, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Web of Science.
RESULTS: Only 61 studies met full criteria and were included the review. This included 31 studies reporting transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation, mitral valve-in-valve implantation (13 studies), tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation (12 studies), and pure native aortic valve regurgitation (nine studies). One of the limitations of this review is that most of the studies included were case reports, together with some case series.
CONCLUSION: Valve-in-valve implantation can be considered as an acceptable alternative to conventional open heart surgery for elderly high-risk surgical patients with bioprosthetic degeneration. Long-term follow-up of treated patients will be necessary to establish the true role of valve-in-valve implantation for bioprosthetic degeneration. Patients should be evaluated on an individual basis until outcomes are proven in large cohort studies or randomised trials.