Aortic valve stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular pathology and has traditionally been managed using surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). A large proportion of affected patient demographics, however, are unfit to undergo major surgery given underlying comorbidities. Since its introduction in 2002, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has gained popularity and transformed the care available to different-risk group patients with severe symptomatic AS. Specific qualifying criteria and refinement of TAVI techniques are fundamental in determining successful outcomes for intervention. Given the successful applicability in high-risk patients, TAVI has been further developed and trialed in intermediate and low-risk patients. Within intermediate-risk patient groups, TAVI was shown to be noninferior to SAVR evaluating 30-d mortality and secondary endpoints such as the risk of bleeding, development of acute kidney injury, and length of admission. The feasibility of expanding TAVI procedures into low-risk patients is still a controversial topic in the literature. A number of trials have recently been published which demonstrate TAVI as noninferior and even superior over SAVR for primary study endpoints. K E Y W O R D S aortic valve, surgery, TAVI, valve replacement 1 | INTRODUCTION Aortic valve stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular pathology, with between 2% and 4% of patients over the age of 75 years bring affected. 1 For decades, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has been considered the class I recommendation in the management of AS. 2 However, given that advanced age, frailty, and significant comorbidities are increasingly prevalent in affected patients; more than one-third of high-risk and severe symptomatic AS patients were not considered physiologically fit enough for major surgical intervention. 2,3 This merited the development of TAVI, an intervention suitable for high-risk patients and those deemed unfit for surgery. With a shift in clinical paradigm toward minimally invasive procedures, the development of TAVI has revolutionized clinical outcomes in AS, particularly in those once considered inoperable. 4 The decision to use TAVI vs SAVR for aortic valve replacement (AVR) is determined by clinical, anatomical, and technical considerations. Since its introduction in 2002, 5 TAVI has increasingly replaced SAVR, the once considered gold standard treatment, in aortic valve diseases. 6-10 More recently, trials such as the Placement of Aortic Trans-Catheter Valve II (PARTNER II) and Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (SURTAVI) 11,12 have further established the use of TAVI in intermediate-risk patients as well. Given this validation of TAVI within high-and intermediate-risk patients, a need has now developed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of TAVI within low-risk surgical candidates. 13Selective candidate criteria, as well as advances in operative techniques within TAVI, are mainstay contributors to successful outcomes. Fundamentally, there exist both retrogr...

No abstract

Objective The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of contrastenhanced ultrasound (CEUS) compared to computed tomography angiography (CTA) for the detection of endoleaks within endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) surveillance at time of follow up. Methods A comprehensive literature search was undertaken among the four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Ovid) to identify all articles assessing diagnostic specificity and accuracy with comparative modality (CEUS vs CTA) for endoleaks in adult patients at time of follow-up following EVAR. Databases where evaluated and assessed to October 2018. Results A total of 1773 patients were analysed from across 18 included studies in the quantitative analysis of the parameters of interest. There was no significant difference in detection rate of endoleak type I with detection rate 4.3% for both groups OR 1.09, 95% CI [0.78, 1.53], p = 0.62; type II endoleak detection rate was 22% in the CEUS group vs 23% in the CTA group OR 1.16, 95% CI [0.75-1.79], p = 0.50; while type III detection rate was 1.8% in CEUS group vs 2% in CTA group OR 0.85, 95% CI [0.43, 1.68], p = 0.64. However, the sensitivity rate for endoleak detection was higher in CEUS (p = 0.001) while no difference in specificity rate was noted (p = 0.28). There was higher rate of missed endoleaks in CTA groups (n = 12 vs n = 20). Conclusion Evidences from this study suggest that contrast-enhanced ultrasound scan post-EVAR can be utilised as safe and effective method in screening for endoleaks during post-EVAR surveillance without exposing the patient for additional risk of radiation and contrast. CEUS conveys no inferiority to CTA in detecting endoleaks.

Objective To understand the current evidence and guidelines behind the appropriate management of cardiac tumours. Methods A comprehensive electronic literature search has been performed in major databases - PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Ovid, and Google Scholar. All articles that discussed all different forms of cardiac tumours, their clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management methods have been critically appraised in this narrative review. Results All relevant studies have been summarized in appropriate sections within our review. Cardiac tumours are rare but can be catastrophic and life-threatening if not identified and managed on timely manner. Utilization of all the available imaging methods can be of equivocal importance, relevant to each cardiac tumour. Surgical excision is the ultimate treatment method, however histopathological results can guide the adjunct treatment. Conclusion Early detection of cardiac tumours has significant effect on planning the method of intervention. Technological advancements and increased availability of imaging modalities have enabled earlier and more accurate detection of these tumours. Novel medical therapies, recommendations for screening, and operative techniques have all contributed to overall improving knowledge of these tumours and ultimately patient outcomes.

No abstract