• International Consensus Statement on Nomenclature and Classification of the Congenital Bicuspid Aortic Valve and Its Aortopathy, for Clinical, Surgical, Interventional and Research Purposes

      Michelena, Hector I; Corte, Alessandro Della; Evangelista, Arturo; Maleszewski, Joseph J; Edwards, William D; Roman, Mary J; Devereux, Richard B; Fernández, Borja; Asch, Federico M; Barker, Alex J; et al. (Radiological Society of North America Inc., 2021-07-22)
      This International Consensus Classification and Nomenclature for the congenital bicuspid aortic valve condition recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valves: 1. The fused type (right-left cusp fusion, right-non-coronary cusp fusion and left-non-coronary cusp fusion phenotypes); 2. The 2-sinus type (latero-lateral and antero-posterior phenotypes); and 3. The partial-fusion (forme fruste) type. The presence of raphe and the symmetry of the fused type phenotypes are critical aspects to describe. The International Consensus also recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valve-associated aortopathy: 1. The ascending phenotype; 2. The root phenotype; and 3. Extended phenotypes. ©  2021 Jointly between the RSNA, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. All rights reserved.
    • The International Society for Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery Expert Consensus Statement on Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low- and Intermediate-Risk Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Propensity-Matched Studies.

      Thourani, Vinod H; Edelman, J James; Holmes, Sari D; Nguyen, Tom C; Carroll, John; Mack, Michael J; Kapadia, Samir; Tang, Gilbert H L; Kodali, Susheel; Kaneko, Tsuyoshi; et al. (SAGE Publications Inc., 2021-01-25)
      Early mortality was lower in TAVR compared to SAVR in RCTs, but not propensity-matched studies in low-risk cohorts (0.66% vs 1.5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20 to 0.98, I2 = 0%). No difference in mortality between TAVR and SAVR was identified in intermediate-risk patients at early or later time points. Incidence of perioperative stroke in 3 low-risk RCTs was significantly lower in TAVR (0.4%) than SAVR (1.4%; OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.81, I2 = 0%). There was no difference in stroke for intermediate-risk patients between TAVR and SAVR. The expert panel of cardiologists and cardiac surgeons provided recommendations for TAVR and SAVR in various clinical scenarios.