Abstract

I read with interest the increasing number of scientific articles involving transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
The meaning of the term “replacement” is to substitute something with something else. Yet, at present, the only way to substitute a stenotic aortic valve is to take away the calcific or fibrotic tissue and put in a new prosthetic valve, which is a surgical (traditional or minimally invasive) approach.
I believe this is not merely a semantic question. As a matter of fact, the presence of the native valve left in situ could be one of the major potential issues affecting the outcome of the transcatheter procedures: peri-procedural risk of stroke and perivalvular leak or infection could be highly related to this aspect.
For these reasons, I believe that the transcatheter procedure could be defined as “implant, insertion, overlapping or therapy,” but not as aortic valve replacement.

I documenti depositati in UnissResearch sono protetti dalle leggi che regolano il diritto d'autore