| Literature DB >> 29358344 |
Danny Dvir1, Thierry Bourguignon2, Catherine M Otto1, Rebecca T Hahn3, Raphael Rosenhek4, John G Webb5, Hendrik Treede6, Maurice E Sarano7, Ted Feldman8, Harindra C Wijeysundera9, Yan Topilsky10, Michel Aupart2, Michael J Reardon11, G Burkhard Mackensen1, Wilson Y Szeto12, Ran Kornowski13, James S Gammie14, Ajit P Yoganathan15, Yaron Arbel10, Michael A Borger3, Matheus Simonato5, Mark Reisman1, Raj R Makkar16, Alexandre Abizaid17, James M McCabe1, Gry Dahle18, Gabriel S Aldea1, Jonathon Leipsic5, Philippe Pibarot19, Neil E Moat20, Michael J Mack21, A Pieter Kappetein22, Martin B Leon3.
Abstract
Bioprostheses are prone to structural valve degeneration, resulting in limited long-term durability. A significant challenge when comparing the durability of different types of bioprostheses is the lack of a standardized terminology for the definition of a degenerated valve. This issue becomes especially important when we try to compare the degeneration rate of surgically inserted and transcatheter bioprosthetic valves. This document, by the VIVID (Valve-in-Valve International Data), proposes practical and standardized definitions of valve degeneration and provides recommendations for the timing of clinical and imaging follow-up assessments accordingly. Its goal is to improve the quality of research and clinical care for patients with deteriorated bioprostheses by providing objective and strict criteria that can be utilized in future clinical trials. We hope that the adoption of these criteria by both the cardiological and surgical communities will lead to improved comparability and interpretation of durability analyses.Entities:
Keywords: durability; echocardiographic criteria; reintervention; reoperation; transcatheter; valve deterioration
Mesh：
Year: 2018 PMID： 29358344 DOI： 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.030729
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Circulation ISSN： 0009-7322 Impact factor: 29.690