Treatment options for isolated aortic valve insufficiency: a review.
aortic insufficiency
aortic prosthesis
aortic regurgitation
aortic valve repair
aortic valve replacement
transcatheter management of AI
Journal
Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine
ISSN: 2297-055X
Titre abrégé: Front Cardiovasc Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101653388
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2024
2024
Historique:
received:
02
02
2024
accepted:
25
03
2024
medline:
26
4
2024
pubmed:
26
4
2024
entrez:
26
4
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Aortic insufficiency (AI) is a valvular disease with increasing prevalence in older patients. The modern era provides numerous options for the management of AI which is explored here. Traditional interventions included aortic valve replacement with either mechanical or bioprosthetic aortic valves. While the former is known for its durability, it has grown out of favor due to the potential complications of anticoagulation. The preference for bioprosthetic valves is thus on the rise, especially with the advancements of transcatheter technology and the use of valve-in-valve therapy. Surgical options are also no longer limited to replacement but include complex techniques such as those required for aortic valve repair, Ozaki neocuspidization, Ross procedure and valve-sparring aortic root repair. Transcatheter options for the management of AI are not commercially available currently; however, preliminary data from ad-hoc trials, showed promising results and potential use of transcatheter technology in a variety of patients with pure AI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38665234
doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2024.1381102
pmc: PMC11043486
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
1381102Informations de copyright
© 2024 Argaw, Azizgolshani, Blitzer, Takayama, George and Pirelli.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
IG has served as a consultant for Edwards, Medtronic, Boston Scientific and Abbott. HT has served as a consultant for Edwards and Artivion. LP has served as a consultant and received speaking honoraria from Edwards and Medtronic. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.