Although the shorttermresults have been well-studied in the literature,there is a limited number of data regarding long-termoutcomes following TAVI, and with the unknowntranscatheter valve durability, TAVI should not beoffered to low-risk young patients, until long-termfollow-up data are available.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Numerous randomized-controlled (also controlledby the industry giants) trials have shown that, interms of short-term outcomes, transcatheter aorticvalve implantation (TAVI) offers a suitable alternativeto the current gold standard of surgical aortic valvereplacement (SAVR), even in low-risk patients.However, the main limitation of these trials is that thefollow-up period is limited to 12 months alone.[1,2] Ina review of nearly 14,000 patients, five-year survivalafter TAVI was found to be 48%.[3] Compared tothe expected survival for a general population ofsimilar age, this study demonstrated poorer survivaloutcomes after TAVI.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In their recent meta-analysiscomparing SAVR and TAVI in low- and intermediateriskpatients, Ueshima et al.[4] demonstrated similarall-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and neurologicalevents during a two-year follow-up.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Although the shorttermresults have been well-studied in the literature,there is a limited number of data regarding long-termoutcomes following TAVI, and with the unknowntranscatheter valve durability, TAVI should not beoffered to low-risk young patients, until long-termfollow-up data are available.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters
Abstract
Numerous randomized-controlled (also controlledby the industry giants) trials have shown that, interms of short-term outcomes, transcatheter aorticvalve implantation (TAVI) offers a suitable alternativeto the current gold standard of surgical aortic valvereplacement (SAVR), even in low-risk patients.However, the main limitation of these trials is that thefollow-up period is limited to 12 months alone.[1,2] Ina review of nearly 14,000 patients, five-year survivalafter TAVI was found to be 48%.[3] Compared tothe expected survival for a general population ofsimilar age, this study demonstrated poorer survivaloutcomes after TAVI. In their recent meta-analysiscomparing SAVR and TAVI in low- and intermediateriskpatients, Ueshima et al.[4] demonstrated similarall-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and neurologicalevents during a two-year follow-up. Although the shorttermresults have been well-studied in the literature,there is a limited number of data regarding long-termoutcomes following TAVI, and with the unknowntranscatheter valve durability, TAVI should not beoffered to low-risk young patients, until long-termfollow-up data are available.
🔖
Cite This Article
ALHAN, C. (2022). Ozaki Procedure. Türk Göğüs Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Dergisi, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 4, 451–453. https://ajindex.com/articles/423834
Mack MJ, Leon MB, Thourani VH, Makkar R, Kodali SK, Russo M, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2019;380:1695-705
Popma JJ, Deeb GM, Yakubov SJ, Mumtaz M, Gada H, O’Hair D, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2019;380:1706-15
Chakos A, Wilson-Smith A, Arora S, Nguyen TC, Dhoble A, Tarantini G, et al. Long term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): a systematic review of 5-year survival and beyond. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2017;6:432-43
Ueshima D, Fovino LN, D’Amico G, Brener SJ, Esposito G, Tarantini G. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low- and intermediate-risk patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Interv Ther 2019;34:216-225 5. Ozaki S, Kawase I, Yamashita H, Uchida S, Takatoh M, Kiyohara N. Midterm outcomes after aortic valve neocuspidization with glutaraldehyde-treated autologous pericardium. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018;155:2379-87.