The article, "comparison of two self-expanding transcatheter heart valves for degenerated surgical bioprostheses: the avenger multicentre registry", was reviewed.The article presented a retrospective, multicenter study to compare outcomes of using two self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (thv) systems for valve-in-valve (viv).Devices included in this study were acurate neo/neo2, evolut r/pro/pro+, ce sav/standard, epic/epic supra, hancock, magna/magna ease, mosaic, perimount, soprano, crown, mitroflow, trifecta, freedom solo, freestyle, pericarbon freedom, and unknown.The article concluded that viv tavi using either acurate or evolut thvs showed similar procedural outcomes.However, a true id >19 mm was associated with higher device success among acurate recipients, whereas in patients with a true id =19 mm, device success was higher when using evolut.[the primary and corresponding author was won-keun kim, kerckhoff heart center, department of cardiology, benekestrasse 2-8, 61231, bad nauheim, germany, with corresponding e-mail: w.Kim@kerckhoff-klinik.De] the time frame of the study was from 2012 to 2023.A total of 835 patients were included in this study, of which 150 were previously implanted an abbott device before undergoing viv with a non-abbott device (22 were epic/epic supra and 128 were trifecta).The average age was 79 years and the majority gender was male.Comorbidities included coronary artery disease, prior pacemaker, atrioventricular block, right bundle branch block, aortic regurgitation.
|
Summarized patient outcomes/complications of sing two self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (thv) systems for valve-in-valve (viv) were reported in a research article "comparison of two self-expanding transcatheter heart valves for degenerated surgical bioprostheses: the avenger multicentre registry" in a subject population with multiple co-morbidities including coronary artery disease, prior pacemaker, atrioventricular block, right bundle branch block, aortic regurgitation.Some of the complications reported were surgical intervention (valve-in-valve), hospitalization, aortic stenosis, aortic regurgitation; these complications are anticipated for the procedure and subject population.A more comprehensive assessment could not be performed as the event was non-contemporaneously reported through a literature review and no device or individual patient information was received for analysis.
|