Transapical aortic valve implantation: predictors of survival up to 5 years in 730 patients. An update

Abstract

We identified three main causes of follow-up mortality: non-cardiac comorbidity, advanced stages of heart failure and procedure-related complications. Further improvements of the TAVI technique should concentrate on the complete exclusion of the latter.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: Acute and intermediate-term outcomes in a high volume institution

“…At the end of the procedure, mild regurgitation was present in 19.2 %, and moderate regurgitation in 0.8 % of the patients included in our overall experience (13). In our sub-group of BAV patients, mild and moderate paravalvular leaks occurred in a slightly higher rate (36 % and 3 % respectively).…”

“…In our global experience, conversion to surgical aortic valve implantation due to rupture of the device landing zone or coronary artery obstruction was reported in 1.1 % of the cases (6 % in the BAV series), prosthesis re-dilatation for more than mild paravalvular leak in 7.5 % (27 % in the BAV series), and re-valving in 2.2 % (9 % in the BAV series) (13).…”

“…All procedures were performed under general anaesthesia and following previously described and established protocols (11)(12)(13). Rules for prostheses sizing did not differ from those normally applied for TAVI in tricuspid AV stenosis (14).…”

Comparison of late mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement: Insights from a meta-analysis

“…Considering the less invasiveness of TAVI over SAVR, especially the transfemoral approach, it is understandable that TAVI could be more advantageous than SAVR in higher-age patients. Age has been reported to be associated with worse outcomes in both TAVI and SAVR [9,48,49]. Subgroup analysis from the RCT of TAVI vs SAVR did not show the difference in higher age group [15,30].…”

Transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement with a novel transcatheter aortic valve replacement system in high-risk patients with severe aortic valve diseases

“…It is also recognized that the guidewire is easier to advance through the antegrade direction rather than the retrograde transfemoral approach with the incidence of cerebrovascular events being relatively lower under transapical method. 18 In treating AR with the J-Valve, the transapical approach allows the locators to sit in the sinuses when pulling the catheter from the apex, which is straightforward and cannot be easily achieved through alternative routes.…”