TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparing traditional aortic valve surgery and transapical approach to transcatheter aortic valve implant
AU - Buzzatti, Nicola
AU - Sala, Alessandra
AU - Alfieri, Ottavio
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. © The Author(s) 2020.
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - During the last 15 years, transcatheter aortic valve implant (TAVI) has become a valid alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis, and high or intermediate operative risk. Transcatheter aortic valve implant could be approached through various access sites, among which the transapical has long been one of the most popular. Through the years, this procedure has shown results similar to the standard surgical approach, but not as good as the same procedure via the transfemoral approach. For this reason, along with continuous technological advances, the transfemoral approach is used, presently, in 90% of the patient, while the transapical route has been limited, progressively, to a minority of patients. Currently the Heart Team should decide, in every single patient, between conventional surgery and TAVI. In clinical practice, TAVI is favoured in high-risk patients, and in the elderly at intermediate surgical risk with favourable anatomical features. In patients in whom TAVI is preferable to surgery, but have ‘non-usable’ femoral approach, alternative routes, such as transaxillary or transapical, could be considered.
AB - During the last 15 years, transcatheter aortic valve implant (TAVI) has become a valid alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis, and high or intermediate operative risk. Transcatheter aortic valve implant could be approached through various access sites, among which the transapical has long been one of the most popular. Through the years, this procedure has shown results similar to the standard surgical approach, but not as good as the same procedure via the transfemoral approach. For this reason, along with continuous technological advances, the transfemoral approach is used, presently, in 90% of the patient, while the transapical route has been limited, progressively, to a minority of patients. Currently the Heart Team should decide, in every single patient, between conventional surgery and TAVI. In clinical practice, TAVI is favoured in high-risk patients, and in the elderly at intermediate surgical risk with favourable anatomical features. In patients in whom TAVI is preferable to surgery, but have ‘non-usable’ femoral approach, alternative routes, such as transaxillary or transapical, could be considered.
KW - Aortic valve replacement
KW - TAVI
KW - Transapical approach
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85089783359&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85089783359&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/EURHEARTJ/SUAA050
DO - 10.1093/EURHEARTJ/SUAA050
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85089783359
VL - 22
SP - E7-E12
JO - European Heart Journal, Supplement
JF - European Heart Journal, Supplement
SN - 1520-765X
ER -