Why the study?
As TAVR use increases, more patients present with ACS, but there is a paucity of high-quality data detailing the incidence, pathophysiology, and management of ACS in this cohort.
How should Acute Coronary Syndrome be managed in patients with prior Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement?
How should Acute Coronary Syndrome be managed in patients with prior Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement?
This review highlights the challenges of managing ACS in post-TAVR patients, particularly regarding coronary access, and notes the underutilization of invasive therapies in this growing population.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a viable treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis among all risk subsets. As TAVR use becomes more prevalent and patients live longer with their transcatheter valve, an increasing number of these patients can be expected to present with ACS. Overall, there is a paucity of high-quality data detailing incidence, pathophysiology, and management of ACS in this subset. While most ACS cases post-TAVR are Type II myocardial infarctions (MI), the incidence of Type I MI and ST-elevation myocardial infarction is not negligible. Additionally, ACS in TAVR patients is associated with poor outcomes. While medical management is similar in this cohort to non-TAVR patients, procedural issues pose a unique challenge, especially as related to coronary access in the presence of valve prosthesis. Despite the proven benefit of invasive therapies in the management of ACS in non-TAVR patients, administrative databases suggest a lower utilization of invasive therapies in this cohort, which may highlight a disparity in care and potential for improvement. In this review, we summarize available data regarding the incidence, pathophysiology, and management of ACS in TAVR patients as well as strategies for coronary access post-TAVR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hirsch et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: