Key result
Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerated Perceval bioprostheses demonstrated safety and efficacy, with an overall complication rate of 15.7% and favorable hemodynamics.
Why the study?
Reintervention may be necessary due to long-term structural degeneration of sutureless aortic bioprostheses, and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement may be a safe alternative for high-risk patients.
Meta-Analysis (n=48)
Sutureless aortic bioprostheses (SAB) provide shorter aortic cross-clamp time and cardiopulmonary bypass duration compared to conventional aortic valve replacement. Similarly to other bioprostheses, reintervention may become necessary in some cases because of long-term structural degeneration of the valve. Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement may represent an effective and safe alternative to aortic valve replacement in patients with degenerated bioprostheses who carry a high risk for reintervention. We report the case of a self-expandable transcatheter ViV procedure in a degenerated SAB.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lettieri et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis in Degenerated Perceval sutureless aortic bioprosthesis (n=48). Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (ViV-TAVR) was evaluated on Overall complications. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerated Perceval bioprostheses demonstrated safety and efficacy, with an overall complication rate of 15.7% and favorable hemodynamics.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: