Why the study?
Does percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve replacement improve survival compared to conservative management in inoperable and very high risk patients with severe aortic stenosis?
Does percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve replacement improve survival compared to conservative management in inoperable and very high risk patients with severe aortic stenosis?
TAVI provides a survival benefit over conservative management in inoperable and very high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, though long-term durability and cost-effectiveness data are still needed.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports TAVI consideration in inoperable high-risk severe AS despite complications; leaves open long-term durability and cost-effectiveness.
Aortic stenosis remains the commonest form of valve disease in modern cardiology. With fifty years’ experience, surgical valve replacement remains the gold standard treatment for survival benefit, durability and symptomatic relief. Percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve replacement has recently gained a credible momentum for inoperable and very high risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. Early and medium term results have demonstrated a proven survival benefit over conservative management, with documented complication rates for stroke, vascular complications and pacemaker implantation. The evidence base for cost effectiveness and long-term results are eagerly anticipated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Robin Chung (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: