Small Degenerated Surgical Bioprosthetic Valve should be Treated with Supra-Annular Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for
Abstract & Keywords
Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?
A: Very Good
Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?
Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?
A: Very Good
Tools and Methods
Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?
Discussion & Conclusion
Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?
Comments: The Discussion establishes that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was chosen as the treatment option for the patient instead of surgical reoperation due to high surgical risk. It highlights that the follow-up showed clinical improvement. Relevant literature has been cited to support the Discussion. The study concludes that for patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM) of small degenerated surgical bioprosthetic valves which are not prone to balloon valve fracture (BVF) supra-annular valve-in-valve TAVR can be a therapeutic option.
Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?
Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?
Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?
Figures & Tables
Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?
Q: Is it clear and understandable?
Comments: Except the following errors have been detected:
1. The 4th sentence in the 2nd paragraph under Case Presentation was not framed properly and should be changed to “The patient was prepared for…. the femoral approach.”
2. The 3rd sentence in the 3rd paragraph under Case Presentation was not framed properly and should be changed to “The pigtail catheter…. right-sided bore access was used for valve delivery.”
3. In the 1st sentence in the 5th paragraph under Discussion the word “aberrate” has been misspelled.
Further comments on the paper
Comments: The case report presents the rare case of a successful valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in acute heart failure due to degenerative surgical bioprosthetic valve Trifecta (21 mm) that is not susceptible to balloon valve fracture (BVF) in a 75-year-old patient. In literature, there are very few case reports describing technique and strategy for valve-in-valve TAVR in the setting of small non-breakable bioprosthetic valves. In this case, standard preparation for transfemoral TAVR with a self-expandable valve was conducted. Follow-up has shown clinical improvement and long-term follow-up still needs to be conducted. The study concludes that supra-annular valve-in-valve TAVR can be a potential therapeutic option for patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM) of small degenerated surgical bioprosthetic valves which are not prone to BVF.
Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?
A: Yes - Suitable to be published
If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.
Science Repository Team
This email is restricted to the intended user.
|Science Repository - Support|
Corresponding AuthorIvica Kristic
Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Split, Split, Croatia
Article TypeCase Report
Publication historyReceived: Fri 24, Sep 2021
Accepted: Sat 09, Oct 2021
Published: Thu 09, Dec 2021
Copyright© 2021 Ivica Kristic. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Hosting by Science Repository.