As with all medical procedures, both TAVI and SAVR have their own outcomes and risks. Read on to know all about it. Cardiovascular issues include conditions affecting the heart and blood vessels.
Heart issues like coronary artery disease, hypertension, heart failure, and arrhythmias can be some of the many coronary problems that one can have. Choosing the appropriate treatment for cardiovascular issues depends on several factors, such as the condition, severity, and available treatments. Here is a comprehensive overview of aortic valve stenosis and its possible options.
Here, we discuss the pros and cons of the TAVI and SAVR therapies, and analyse both approaches. Aortic stenosis can affect anyone and can cause symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, and fatigue. In the past, SAVR has been the standard treatment, including open heart surgery to remove the defective value with either a mechanical or bioprosthetic valve.
Due to technological advancements in medicine, TAVI has been introduced, which is especially helpful for patients considered too risky for traditional surgery. The Procedures Let's take a look at the procedures first. TAVI, or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation, is a procedure used to treat aortic stenosis, which occurs when the aortic valve narrows and blood cannot flow normally.
It is a minimally invasive procedure in which a new valve is inserted through a catheter. The catheter is usually guided through the femoral artery or a small chest incision. The catheter delivers the bioprosthetic valve to the location of the defective valve, where it expands and takes over the functions of the original valve.
A surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) requires open heart surgery , during which the patient is put on cardiopulmonary bypass. In this procedure, the surgeon removes and replaces the damaged valve with a prosthetic valve. With this method, the heart and its surrounding components can be directly visualised and changed, ensuring the exact placement of the new valve.
Patient Suitability Patient suitability plays a crucial role in deciding whether TAVI or SAVR is the best treatment for severe aortic stenosis. SAVR is usually recommended to younger patients with good overall health and fewer underlying health issues. TAVI, on the other hand, is appropriate for older patients or for those with several co-morbidities who are vulnerable to complications from conventional surgery.
var firstScrolled3 = false; window.addEventListener("scroll",(event) => { if(!firstScrolled3) {window._taboola = window.
_taboola || []; _taboola.push({ mode: "thumbnails-m", container: "taboola-mid-article-thumbnails", placement: "Mid Article Thumbnails", target_type: "mix" }); firstScrolled3 = true; } }); Outcomes and Limitations Like any other medical procedure, TAVI and SAVR have their outcomes and risks. The TAVI procedure has shown remarkable success in reducing mortality rates and raising the quality of life in people at high, intermediate, and low risk.
Compared to standard SAVR procedure, which involves momentarily stopping the heart on a bypass machine, TAVI is a minimally invasive treatment that guarantees a decreased risk of infection and bleeding, shorter hospital stays, safer outcomes, and a quicker recovery period. However, the SAVR procedure is recommended for younger patients who are at a lower surgical risk, those with small aortic annuli or have conditions such as aortic aneurysm or multivessel coronary artery disease. SAVR is a reliable choice for younger patients who can undergo Mechanical Valve implantation.
Regarding limitations, SAVR is a more invasive procedure and requires a longer recovery period. It is also important to consider the risks of open heart surgery, such as bleeding and infection, when deciding between TAVI and SAVR. Moreover, the operator's experience and level of expertise directly affect the outcome of the Tavi procedure.
TAVI is a 'Lifetime Management' protocol that all valvular disease patients must adhere to. TAVI and SAVR both represent significant advancements in the treatment of severe aortic stenosis, which provide tailored methods depending on each patient's concerns and characteristics. While TAVI has transformed care for the elderly and patients who may benefit from a less invasive procedure with a faster recovery period, SAVR can be the correct alternative for younger, healthier patients needing valve replacements.
.
