Key result
Review outlines pros and cons of minimally invasive SAVR versus sternotomy and TAVR for severe AS.
Why the study?
What are the pros and cons of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement compared to full sternotomy and transcatheter procedures for severe aortic stenosis?
What are the pros and cons of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement compared to full sternotomy and transcatheter procedures for severe aortic stenosis?
This review summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement as an alternative to full sternotomy and TAVI.
May inform individualized AVR planning in severe aortic stenosis; leaves open randomized comparisons to sternotomy or TAVI.
Full sternotomy aortic valve replacement has been the gold standard for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis. Now transcatheter aortic valve implantation is becoming a new procedure that has shown its efficacy in a high risk population with aortic stenosis. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement, using a 7-9 centimeters incision with an upper sternotomy tries to obtain the advantages and open surgical field and the less aggression of transcatheter procedures. We review the pros and cons of the minimally invasive aortic valve replacement updating the information obtained in the literature.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reyes et al. (2016) conducted a review in severe aortic stenosis. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement vs. Full sternotomy aortic valve replacement was evaluated. A review of the literature outlines the pros and cons of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement as an alternative to full sternotomy and transcatheter procedures for severe aortic stenosis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: