No, we can ’ t allow BAV to be a threat,.. to our heart-throb !

Interventional cardiologists generally do not believe (rather relish) in simple balloon dilatations to remove any vascular blocks. It is a mundane job for their talent-ridden hands. After conquering the coronaries, we made exclusive the valvular stents. No surprise, TAVR has taken over the aortic interventions with all its glamour and vigor, though it is definitely not an ideal choice in all. SCAI, the prestigious journal in Interventional cardiology has a recent article , that has a not-so pleasant message for TAVR lovers. PIIS2772930323004453Download It poses a direct challenge to cardiologists’ heart throb TAVI. Though, it suggests BAV as an adjunct or bridge , there is every reason to belive the bridge can outlive the lives of many co-morbid subsets in TAVR eligible cohorts. (ACC 2014 guidelines already has a grossly under-rated 2B/ Evidence C Indication for BAV) It seems reasonable to believe BAV, with considerable improvement in hardware, technology, and expertise can be an alternative to high-risk aortic stenosis in a substantial number of patients. It is also worth pondering over a less discussed aspect of BAV. The apparent high adverse events with BAV in calcific AS reported in the past-PARTNER days are now proven to be either exaggerated, outdated, or outright false. (For the evidence seekers, there was never a control BAV arm in none of those big studies on TAVR. It was purely a Surgery vs TAVR study. (A flaw in the aim of the study?) They...
Source: Dr.S.Venkatesan MD - Category: Cardiology Authors: Tags: Uncategorized Source Type: blogs