Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2018
Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with a low ejection fraction.
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.
Imnadze Guram, Hofmann Steffen, Billion Michael, Ferdosi Abbas, Kowalski Marek, Smith Katherine H, Deutsch Cornelia, Bramlage Peter, Warnecke Henning, Franz Norbert
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: It may be expected that patients with left ventricular dysfunction may be at greater risk of complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) via transapical (TA) access compared with via transfemoral (TF) access. There is a lack of data comparing the outcomes of TAVI using TA and TF access in patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (EF).
METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of data from a high-volume heart centre in Germany. TAVI access route assignment was based on a 'best for TF' approach, where only patients who met a strict set of criteria underwent TF-TAVI, with the remainder receiving TA-TAVI. For this analysis, patients were included if they had a pre-TAVI EF of ≤ 40%. Early mortality and late (1-year) mortality were compared through multivariate logistic regression.
RESULTS: A total of 342 patients in the registry had an EF of ≤ 40%, of which 74.9% underwent TA-TAVI and 25.1% underwent TF-TAVI. Higher proportions of the TA group presented with certain comorbidities, and their logistic EuroSCORE and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk scores were higher than in the TF group. At 1 year, TA access was associated with greater mortality in the univariate analysis (odd ratio 2.43; 95% confidence interval 1.04-5.69). However, after multivariate adjustment, no significant differences were found in either 30-day or 1-year mortality rates.
CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that, for patients with a reduced EF, TA-TAVI is not associated with a poorer outcome compared with TF-TAVI. Therefore, TA access should not be discounted based on the presence of left ventricular dysfunction alone.
METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of data from a high-volume heart centre in Germany. TAVI access route assignment was based on a 'best for TF' approach, where only patients who met a strict set of criteria underwent TF-TAVI, with the remainder receiving TA-TAVI. For this analysis, patients were included if they had a pre-TAVI EF of ≤ 40%. Early mortality and late (1-year) mortality were compared through multivariate logistic regression.
RESULTS: A total of 342 patients in the registry had an EF of ≤ 40%, of which 74.9% underwent TA-TAVI and 25.1% underwent TF-TAVI. Higher proportions of the TA group presented with certain comorbidities, and their logistic EuroSCORE and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk scores were higher than in the TF group. At 1 year, TA access was associated with greater mortality in the univariate analysis (odd ratio 2.43; 95% confidence interval 1.04-5.69). However, after multivariate adjustment, no significant differences were found in either 30-day or 1-year mortality rates.
CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that, for patients with a reduced EF, TA-TAVI is not associated with a poorer outcome compared with TF-TAVI. Therefore, TA access should not be discounted based on the presence of left ventricular dysfunction alone.