Journal of Chest Surgery

The Korean Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (대한심장혈관흉부외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Commentary: The Never-Ending Debate on the Type of Aortic Prosthesis in Patients Aged 50-70, as TAVR Peaks in Popularity: Which Prosthesis Should Be Used for Aortic Valve Replacement?

  • Seung Hyun Lee (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2024.04.24
  • Accepted : 2024.04.24
  • Published : 2024.05.05
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Keywords

References

  1. Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease: developed by the Task Force for the management of valvular heart disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed) 2022;75:524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2022.05.006 
  2. Writing Committee Members; Otto CM, Nishimura RA, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021;77:450-500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.035 
  3. Korteland NM, Top D, Borsboom GJ, Roos-Hesselink JW, Bogers AJ, Takkenberg JJ. Quality of life and prosthetic aortic valve selection in non-elderly adult patients. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2016;22:723-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivw021 
  4. Tasoudis PT, Varvoglis DN, Vitkos E, et al. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic valve for aortic valve replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis of reconstructed individual participant data. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2022;62:ezac268. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezac268 
  5. Lu R, Dismorr M, Glaser N, Sartipy U. Aortic valve replacement with mechanical valves vs perimount bioprostheses in 50-to 69-year-old patients. JACC Adv 2023;2:100359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacadv.2023.100359 
  6. Song Y, Kim KT, Park SJ, et al. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70 years. J Chest Surg 2024;57:241-51. https://doi.org/10.5090/jcs.23.143 
  7. Tam DY, Dharma C, Rocha RV, et al. Transcatheter ViV versus redo surgical AVR for the management of failed biological prosthesis: early and late outcomes in a propensity-matched cohort. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2020;13:765-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2019.10.030 
  8. Fath AR, Aglan A, Eldaly A, Olagunju A, Almomani A. Long-term outcomes for contemporary mechanical versus bioprosthetic surgical mitral valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70 years. Circulation 2023;148(Suppl_1):A14162. https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.148.suppl_1.14162 
  9. Alkhouli M, Alqahtani F, Kawsara A, Pislaru S, Schaff HV, Nishimura RA. National trends in mechanical valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70 years. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:2687-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.09.608 
  10. Zhao W, Chen Z, Chen S, et al. Long-term outcomes of bioprosthetic and mechanical valve replacement for patients aged between 50 and 70 years. Rev Cardiovasc Med 2023;24:253. https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2409253