Kardiologia polska · 2026
Balancing risk and innovation: Comparative clinical outcomes of sutureless versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in Heart Team practice.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bayici Bedirhan Bugra, Kizilyel Fatih, Albeyoglu Sebnem
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have expanded treatment options for severe aortic stenosis, but comparative real-world data remain limited.
AIMS: We aimed to compare early and up to 6-month clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of SU-AVR versus transfemoral TAVI.
METHODS: All consecutive patients undergoing SU-AVR (n = 53) or TAVI (n = 245) between 2014 and 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching (1:1 nearest neighbor, no replacement) generated 53 balanced pairs.
RESULTS: Paravalvular leak was more frequent after TAVI and was driven by mild leaks (40.0% vs. 13.3%; P = 0.019), while moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak was low and comparable (6.7% vs. 3.3%; P = 0.646). TAVI demonstrated lower transvalvular gradients compared to SU-AVR (P = 0.004); other 6-month echocardiographic parameters, including left ventricular ejection fraction and pulmonary artery pressure, were comparable. Permanent pacemaker implantation rates were comparable. Early mortality did not differ between the SU-AVR and TAVI groups (13.5% vs. 5.7%; P = 0.173). TAVI was associated with shorter hospitalization (median 5.2, interquartile range 3.7-7.3 vs. 8.7, interquartile range 6.3-11.9 days; P <0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: In selected high-risk patients, SU-AVR and TAVI showed complementary early profiles. Individualized Heart Team-based decision-making remains essential.
AIMS: We aimed to compare early and up to 6-month clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of SU-AVR versus transfemoral TAVI.
METHODS: All consecutive patients undergoing SU-AVR (n = 53) or TAVI (n = 245) between 2014 and 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching (1:1 nearest neighbor, no replacement) generated 53 balanced pairs.
RESULTS: Paravalvular leak was more frequent after TAVI and was driven by mild leaks (40.0% vs. 13.3%; P = 0.019), while moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak was low and comparable (6.7% vs. 3.3%; P = 0.646). TAVI demonstrated lower transvalvular gradients compared to SU-AVR (P = 0.004); other 6-month echocardiographic parameters, including left ventricular ejection fraction and pulmonary artery pressure, were comparable. Permanent pacemaker implantation rates were comparable. Early mortality did not differ between the SU-AVR and TAVI groups (13.5% vs. 5.7%; P = 0.173). TAVI was associated with shorter hospitalization (median 5.2, interquartile range 3.7-7.3 vs. 8.7, interquartile range 6.3-11.9 days; P <0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: In selected high-risk patients, SU-AVR and TAVI showed complementary early profiles. Individualized Heart Team-based decision-making remains essential.