Stroke rates were also similar after 30 days (1.4% for bicuspid AS vs. 1.2% for tricuspid AS) and one year (2.0% vs. 2.1%).
“There were no significant differences between the bicuspid and tricuspid groups in procedural complications, valve hemodynamics, and moderate or severe paravalvular leak,” the authors added.
The team did note that their work had certain limitations. It was based on observational data, for instance, and there was “incomplete follow-up” that was likely made worse due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, the authors emphasized, they were focused on balloon-expandable valves only, meaning the findings don’t represent other available valve types.
Even with these limitations in mind, however, the group highlighted the importance of its findings, noting that even more work is needed.
“Because of the potential for selection bias and absence of a control group treated surgically for bicuspid stenosis, randomized trials are needed to adequately assess the efficacy and safety of TAVR for bicuspid AS in patients at low surgical risk,” they wrote.
Read the full study here.
"low" - Google News
September 25, 2021 at 02:05AM
https://ift.tt/3AHM97B
TAVR provides comparable value for low-risk patients with bicuspid and tricuspid AS - Cardiovascular Business
"low" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2z1WHDx
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "TAVR provides comparable value for low-risk patients with bicuspid and tricuspid AS - Cardiovascular Business"
Post a Comment