English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

During the last 15 years, transcatheter aortic valve implant (TAVI) has become a valid alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis, and high or intermediate operative risk. Transcatheter aortic valve implant could be approached through various access sites, among which the transapical has long been one of the most popular. Through the years, this procedure has shown results similar to the standard surgical approach, but not as good as the same procedure via the transfemoral approach. For this reason, along with continuous technological advances, the transfemoral approach is used, presently, in 90% of the patient, while the transapical route has been limited, progressively, to a minority of patients. Currently the Heart Team should decide, in every single patient, between conventional surgery and TAVI. In clinical practice, TAVI is favoured in high-risk patients, and in the elderly at intermediate surgical risk with favourable anatomical features. In patients in whom TAVI is preferable to surgery, but have ‘non-usable’ femoral approach, alternative routes, such as transaxillary or transapical, could be considered.

Comparing traditional aortic valve surgery and transapical approach to transcatheter aortic valve implant