Why the study?
Does percutaneous closure provide an effective alternative to surgery for symptomatic prosthetic paravalvular leaks?
Does percutaneous closure provide an effective alternative to surgery for symptomatic prosthetic paravalvular leaks?
Percutaneous closure devices offer a less invasive alternative to repeat surgery for high-risk patients with symptomatic prosthetic paravalvular leaks.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports percutaneous closure in select high-risk patients; leaves open need for randomized trials before changing practice.
Paravalvular leaks (PVLs) are relatively common after valve replacement. These leaks are usually small and disappear during the follow-up. Symptomatic PVLs occur in 1% to 2% of patients undergoing valve replacement. PVLs causing clinical consequences require surgical intervention. Surgery is considered the gold standard of dehiscence repair. In recent years, the use of percutaneous closure devices for closing PVLs has been proposed as an alternative to surgery. Such techniques are less invasive and can be used in most high-risk patients instead of performing repeat surgery. This article describes how to assess the leak as well as the technical aspects of the procedure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Heretyk et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: