MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций
Cardiac failure review · 2022

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients with Aortic Insufficiency.

СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Rali Aniket S, Taduru Siva S, Tran Lena E, Ranka Sagar, Schlendorf Kelly H, Barker Colin M, Shah Ashish S, Lindenfeld JoAnn, Zalawadiya Sandip K

Аннотация

Background: Worsening aortic insufficiency (AI) is a known sequela of prolonged continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support with a significant impact on patient outcomes. While medical treatment may relieve symptoms, it is unlikely to halt progression. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are among non-medical interventions available to address post-LVAD AI. Limited data are available on outcomes with either SAVR or TAVR for the management of post-LVAD AI. Methods: The National Inpatient Sample data collected for hospital admissions between the years 2015 and 2018 for patients with pre-existing continuous-flow LVAD undergoing TAVR or SAVR for AI were queried. The primary outcome of interest was a composite of in-hospital mortality, stroke, transient ischaemic attack, MI, pacemaker implantation, need for open aortic valve surgery, vascular complications and cardiac tamponade. Results: Patients undergoing TAVR were more likely to receive their procedure during an elective admission (57.1 versus 30%, p=0.002), and a significantly higher prevalence of comorbidities, as assessed by the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, was observed in the SAVR group (29 versus 18; p=0.0001). We observed a significantly higher prevalence of the primary composite outcome in patients undergoing SAVR (30%) compared with TAVR (14.3%; p=0.001). Upon multivariable analysis adjusting for the type of admission and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, TAVR was associated with significantly lower odds of the composite outcome (odds ratio 0.243; 95% CI [0.06-0.97]; p=0.045). Conclusion: In this nationally representative cohort of LVAD patients with post-implant AI, it was observed that TAVR was associated with a lower risk of adverse short-term outcomes compared with SAVR.