The Impact of THV Platforms on Transfemoral TAVR in Complex Vascular Access: Insights From the Hostile Registry.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Fraccaro Chiara, Palmerini Tullio, Lorenzoni Giulia, Saia Francesco, Kim Won-Keun, Iadanza Alessandro, De Backer Ole, Burzotta Francesco, Trani Carlo, Van Mieghem Nicolas M, Pilgrim Thomas, Aranzulla Tiziana Claudia, Meertens Max M, Joner Michael, Meucci Francesco, Toggweiler Stefan, Testa Luca, Berti Sergio, Montorfano Matteo, Braun Daniel, Castriota Fausto, De Carlo Marco, Barbanti Marco, Stefanini Giulio, Nickenig Georg, Piva Tommaso, Latib Azeem, Porto Italo, Kornowski Ran, Bartorelli Antonio L, Abdel-Wahab Mohamed, Gregori Dario, Tarantini Giuseppe
Аннотация
AIMS: This study assessed the impact of SEVs and BEVs on clinical outcomes in PAD patients, considering hostile score severity.
METHODS: This sub-analysis of the Hostile Registry included 419 TAVR patients (47% SEVs, 53% BEVs). Outcomes, including all-cause mortality, stroke, vascular complications, and major bleeding were evaluated at 30 days and 1 year. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models assessed associations, with interaction terms exploring the modifying effect of valve type by hostile score severity.
RESULTS: No significant differences emerged between SEVs and BEVs for 30-day and 1-year outcomes. However, in SEVs recipients, a high hostile score was associated with worse outcomes, including 1-year all-cause mortality (HR 2.81, p = 0.033), stroke (HR 18.26, p = 0.008), major bleeding (HR 2.49, p = 0.033), and MACCE (HR 4.34, p < 0.001). Interaction terms were not statistically significant, although a trend for MACCE (p = 0.0598) was noted.
CONCLUSIONS: SEVs and BEVs demonstrated comparable outcomes overall, high hostile score were associated with worse outcomes in the SEV group. Nonetheless, there was a trend suggesting a difference between the two valves in this setting, and further studies are needed to confirm potential valve-specific differences in high-risk populations and to refine personalized valve selection.