Why the study?
What is the current state-of-the-art, expanding indications, and technological obstacles for transcatheter valve replacement in congenital heart disease?
What is the current state-of-the-art, expanding indications, and technological obstacles for transcatheter valve replacement in congenital heart disease?
Transcatheter valve replacement holds significant promise and is safe and effective in the short-term for treating right ventricular outflow tract dysfunction in congenital heart disease.
Short-term safety supports selective use in congenital RVOT dysfunction; leaves open long-term durability and expanded indications.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Catheter-based valve technologies have evolved rapidly over the last decade. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a routine procedure in high-risk adult patients with calcific aortic stenosis. In patients with congenital heart disease (CHD), transcatheter pulmonary valve replacement represents a transformative technology for right ventricular outflow tract dysfunction with the potential to expand to other indications. This review aims to summarize the current state-of-the-art for transcatheter valve replacement (TVR) in CHD; the expanding indications for TVR; and the technological obstacles to optimizing TVR. RECENT FINDINGS: Multiple case series have demonstrated that TVR with the Melody transcatheter pulmonary valve in properly selected patients is safe, effective, and durable in short-term follow-up. The Sapien transcatheter heart valve represents an alternative device with similar safety and efficacy in limited studies. Innovative use of current valves has demonstrated the flexibility of TVR, while highlighting the need for devices to address the broad range of postoperative anatomies either with a single device or with strategies to prepare the outflow tract for subsequent device deployment. SUMMARY: The potential of TVR has not been fully realized, but holds promise in treatment of CHD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
O’Byrne et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: