Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2018
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement of Failed Surgically Implanted Bioprostheses: The STS/ACC Registry.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Tuzcu E Murat, Kapadia Samir R, Vemulapalli Sreekanth, Carroll John D, Holmes David R, Mack Michael J, Thourani Vinod H, Grover Frederick L, Brennan J Matthew, Suri Rakesh M, Dai David, Svensson Lars G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to be feasible, yet the safety and efficacy in relation to native valve (NV) TAVR are not known.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of ViV TAVR for failed surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) by comparing it with the benchmark of NV TAVR.
METHODS: Patients who underwent ViV-TAVR (n = 1,150) were matched 1:2 (on sex, high or extreme risk, hostile chest or porcelain aorta, 5-m-walk time, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality for reoperation) to patients undergoing NV-TAVR (n = 2,259). Baseline characteristics, procedural data, and in-hospital outcomes were obtained from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. The 30-day and 1-year outcomes were obtained from linked Medicare administrative claims data.
RESULTS: Unadjusted analysis revealed lower 30-day mortality (2.9% vs. 4.8%; p < 0.001), stroke (1.7% vs. 3.0%; p = 0.003), and heart failure hospitalizations (2.4% vs. 4.6%; p < 0.001) in the ViV-TAVR compared with NV-TAVR group. Adjusted analysis revealed lower 30-day mortality (hazard ratio: 0.503; 95% confidence interval: 0.302 to 0.839; p = 0.008), lower 1-year mortality (hazard ratio: 0.653; 95% confidence interval: 0.505 to 0.844; p = 0.001), and hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio: 0.685; 95% confidence interval: 0.500 to 0.939; p = 0.019) in the ViV-TAVR group. Patients in the ViV-TAVR group had higher post-TAVR mean gradient (16 vs. 9 mm Hg; p < 0.001), but less moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (3.5% vs. 6.6%; p < 0.001). Post-TAVR gradients were highest in small SAVRs and stenotic SAVRs.
CONCLUSIONS: Comparison with the benchmark NV-TAVR shows ViV-TAVR to be a safe and effective procedure in patients with failed SAVR who are at high risk for repeat surgery.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of ViV TAVR for failed surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) by comparing it with the benchmark of NV TAVR.
METHODS: Patients who underwent ViV-TAVR (n = 1,150) were matched 1:2 (on sex, high or extreme risk, hostile chest or porcelain aorta, 5-m-walk time, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality for reoperation) to patients undergoing NV-TAVR (n = 2,259). Baseline characteristics, procedural data, and in-hospital outcomes were obtained from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. The 30-day and 1-year outcomes were obtained from linked Medicare administrative claims data.
RESULTS: Unadjusted analysis revealed lower 30-day mortality (2.9% vs. 4.8%; p < 0.001), stroke (1.7% vs. 3.0%; p = 0.003), and heart failure hospitalizations (2.4% vs. 4.6%; p < 0.001) in the ViV-TAVR compared with NV-TAVR group. Adjusted analysis revealed lower 30-day mortality (hazard ratio: 0.503; 95% confidence interval: 0.302 to 0.839; p = 0.008), lower 1-year mortality (hazard ratio: 0.653; 95% confidence interval: 0.505 to 0.844; p = 0.001), and hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio: 0.685; 95% confidence interval: 0.500 to 0.939; p = 0.019) in the ViV-TAVR group. Patients in the ViV-TAVR group had higher post-TAVR mean gradient (16 vs. 9 mm Hg; p < 0.001), but less moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (3.5% vs. 6.6%; p < 0.001). Post-TAVR gradients were highest in small SAVRs and stenotic SAVRs.
CONCLUSIONS: Comparison with the benchmark NV-TAVR shows ViV-TAVR to be a safe and effective procedure in patients with failed SAVR who are at high risk for repeat surgery.