دسترسی یکساله به بیش از ۵۰۰ ژورنال روز جهان موجود در سامانه
-
http://medilib.ir
- ﻣﺪﺕ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ : 365 ﺭﻭﺯ
قیمت : 3,800,000 تومان- قیمت ویژه : 1,900,000تومان
Inside This Issue
doi : 10.1016/S1936-8798(20)32537-1
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages A11-A15
Incidence, Predictors, and Implications of Permanent Pacemaker Requirement After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
Yasser Sammour, Amar Krishnaswamy, Arnav Kumar, Rishi Puri, ... Samir R. Kapadia
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.09.063
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages 115-134
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a safe and feasible alternative to surgery in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis regardless of the surgical risk. Conduction abnormalities requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation remain a common finding after TAVR due to the close proximity of the atrioventricular conduction system to the aortic root. High-grade atrioventricular block and new onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) are the most commonly reported conduction abnormalities after TAVR. The overall rate of PPM implantation after TAVR varies and is related to pre-procedural and intraprocedural factors. The available literature regarding the impact of conduction abnormalities and PPM requirement on morbidity and mortality is still conflicting. Pre-procedural conduction abnormalities such as right bundle branch block and LBBB have been linked with increased PPM implantation and mortality after TAVR. When screening patients for TAVR, heart teams should be aware of various anatomical and pathophysiological conditions that make patients more susceptible to increased risk of conduction abnormalities and PPM requirement after the procedure. This is particularly important as TAVR has been recently approved for patients with low surgical risk. The purpose of this review is to discuss the incidence, predictors, impact, and management of the various conduction abnormalities requiring PPM implantation in patients undergoing TAVR.
Safety and Efficacy of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Continuation of Vitamin K Antagonists or Direct Oral Anticoagulants
Miriam Brinkert, Norman Mangner, Noriaki Moriyama, Lukas S. Keller, ... Stefan Toggweiler
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.09.062
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages 135-144
This study investigated whether transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with peri-procedural continuation of oral anticoagulation is equally safe and efficacious as TAVR with peri-procedural interruption of anticoagulation.
Oral Anticoagulation Continuation Throughout TAVR: High Risk–High Reward or Marginal Gains??
Vincent Auffret, Guillaume Leurent, Hervé Le Breton
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.10.026
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages 145-148
Suture- or Plug-Based Large-Bore Arteriotomy Closure: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Maarten P. van Wiechen, Didier Tchétché, Joris F. Ooms, Thijmen W. Hokken, ... Nicolas M. Van Mieghem
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.09.052
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages 149-157
This study sought to test the superiority in terms of efficacy and safety of a dedicated plug-based vascular closure device (VCD) during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) over a suture-based VCD.
In Search of an Ideal Vascular Closure Device for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement?
J. Dawn Abbott, Chirag Bavishi
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.10.046
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages 158-160
The Use and Outcomes of Cerebral Protection Devices for Patients Undergoing Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Clinical Practice
Peter Stachon, Klaus Kaier, Timo Heidt, Dennis Wolf, ... Constantin von zur Mühlen
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.09.047
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages 161-168
This study hypothesized that cerebral protection prevents strokes in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in clinical practice.
Cerebral Embolic Protection in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Connecting Intuition and Proof?
Samir R. Kapadia, Amar Krishnaswamy
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.11.025
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages 169-171
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the LOTUS Edge System: Early European Experience
Xavier Armario, Liesbeth Rosseel, Rajesh Kharbanda, Saib Khogali, ... Darren Mylotte
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.09.044
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages 172-181
The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the LOTUS Edge system.
The LOTUS Edge Is Up for a Challenge?
Stefan Toggweiler
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.10.045
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages 182-184
Double S-Curve Versus Cusp-Overlap Technique: Defining the Optimal Fluoroscopic Projection for TAVR With a Self-Expanding Device
Jeremy Ben-Shoshan, Hind Alosaimi, Pascal Thériault Lauzier, Michele Pighi, ... Nicolo Piazza
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.10.033
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages 185-194
The purpose of this study was to assess the concordance between transcatheter aortic valve implantation angles generated by the “double S-curve” and “cusp-overlap” techniques.
Optimizing Fluoroscopic Projections for TAVR: Any Difference Between the Double S-Curve and the Cusp-Overlap Technique?
Didier Tchétché, Saifullah Siddiqui
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.11.020
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages 195-197
Unplanned Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization After TAVR: A Multicenter International Registry
Giulio G. Stefanini, Enrico Cerrato, Carlo Andrea Pivato, Michael Joner, ... Luis Nombela-Franco
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.10.031
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages 198-207
This study sought to evaluate the incidence and causes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at different time periods following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).
Unplanned Coronary Intervention After TAVR: Timing, Causes, and Management?
Duk-Woo Park, Seung-Jung Park
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.11.021
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages 208-210
Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Meta-Analysis
Michel Pompeu B.O. S?, Jef Van den Eynde, Matheus Simonato, Luiz Rafael P. Cavalcanti, ... Marie-Annick Clavel
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.10.020
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages 211-220
The aim of this study was to evaluate early results of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for structural valve degeneration (SVD).
Failing Surgical Aortic Valve?: It Is Time for a Change
Marco Spaziano, Jeremy Y. Levett, Nicolo Piazza
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.12.020
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages 221-223
Technical Considerations for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With ACURATE neo2
Ivan Wong, Gintautas Bieliauskas, Ole De Backer, Lars S?ndergaard
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.10.022
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages 224-226
The Antegrade-Retrograde Technique Applied in Uncrossable Valve-in-Valve TAVR: A Step-by-Step Guide
Ivan Wong, Gintautas Bieliauskas, Lars S?ndergaard, Ole De Backer
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.11.012
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages 227-229
ACURATE neo Bioprosthesis in Stenotic Bicuspid Aortic Valve Developing Aortic Ulceration and Endocarditis
Fabio Zucchetta, Eliana Raviola, Carlotta Brega, Antonio Mangieri, Alberto Albertini
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.11.013
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages e11-e13
Pulmonary Artery Occlusion Due to Abrupt Pinhole Rupture of Aortic Arch Aneurysm
Takayuki Warisawa, Akiyuki Kotoku, Ryosuke Miyauchi, Toshiya Kobayashi, ... Yoshihiro J. Akashi
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.11.028
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages e15-e16
4-Dimensional Computed Tomography Detects Early Leaflet Calcification 3 Years After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
Hirofumi Hioki, Yusuke Watanabe, Akihisa Kataoka, Ken Kozuma
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.12.003
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages e17-e20
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages e17-e20
Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal, Shubham Agarwal
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.11.010
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Page 230
Reply: Elimination of Aspirin From PCI Pharmacotherapy
Pedro A. Lemos, Norihiro Kogame, Patricia O. Guimar?es, Rodrigo Modolo, Patrick W. Serruys
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.12.006
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages 230-231
The Bayesian Approach and the Results of the ISAR-REACT 5 Trial
Adnan Kastrati, Alexander Hapfelmeier
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.12.001
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages 231-232
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages 231-232
Anthony J. Mazzella, Michael J. Hendrickson, Sameer Arora, Mason Sanders, ... Anil K. Gehi
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.09.034
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages 232-234
Single Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Following TAVR: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Paul Guedeney, Sabato Sorrentino, Jules Mesnier, Salvatore De Rosa, ... Jean-Philippe Collet
doi : 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.10.016
Volume 14, Issue 2, 25 January 2021, Pages 234-236
