You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 108, Issue 9
  • Correspondence on 'The personalized external aortic root support procedure: interesting niche or ready for prime time?' by Burke et al

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Correspondence
Correspondence on 'The personalized external aortic root support procedure: interesting niche or ready for prime time?' by Burke et al
  1. Robert H Anderson
  1. Biosciences Division, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Robert H Anderson, 60 Earlsfield Road, London, SW18 3DN, UK; sejjran{at}ucl.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2021-320555

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    To the Editor: In their perceptive editorial,1 Burke and Bavaria comment on the ‘significant technical achievement’ demonstrated by Van Hoof et al in their report of the first 200 patients receiving personalised support of the aortic root (PEARS) in the setting of Marfan’s syndrome.2 They urge caution, however, prior to widespread adoption of the technique, in particular with regard to the potential problem of the eventual development of aortic regurgitation. One wonders, nonetheless, as to whether their criticisms in this regard are entirely justified? They draw attention to previous …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors RHA is the sole contributor.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles