JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2017
Transcatheter and Surgical Management of Mitral Paravalvular Leak: Long-Term Outcomes.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Alkhouli Mohamad, Rihal Charanjit S, Zack Chad J, Eleid Mackram F, Maor Elad, Sarraf Mohammad, Cabalka Allison K, Reeder Guy S, Hagler Donald J, Maalouf Joseph F, Nkomo Vuyisile T, Schaff Hartzell V, Said Sameh M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to report the use trends and immediate and long-term outcomes of a large cohort of patients who underwent redo surgery or transcatheter repair of paravalvular leaks (PVLs) at a tertiary referral center.
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous treatment of mitral PVL has emerged as an alternative to surgical treatment in high-risk surgical candidates. There are limited data on the utilization trends, safety, and efficacy of both procedures in the management of mitral PVL.
METHODS: Patients who underwent treatment of mitral PVL at the Mayo Clinic between January 1995 and December 2015 were enrolled. Utilization trends, procedural details, technical success, and in-hospital and long-term outcomes were assessed.
RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-one patients underwent percutaneous (n = 195) or surgical (n = 186) treatment of mitral PVLs. The mean age was 66 ± 12 years, and 37% of patients had bioprosthetic valves. Technical success was higher in the surgical group (95.5% vs. 70.1%; p < 0.001). In-hospital major adverse events were more common after surgery (22.5% vs. 7.7%; p < 0.001). In-hospital death occurred in 3.1% and 8.6% of patients undergoing percutaneous and surgical treatment, respectively (p = 0.027). However, in a multivariate logistic regression analysis, only active endocarditis, chronic renal failure, and severe mitral annular calcifications were significant predictors of in-hospital mortality. Reintervention rates were similar (11.3% vs. 17.2% in the percutaneous and surgical groups, respectively; p = 0.10), with the majority of reinterventions in the percutaneous group occurring early because of residual leak or persistent hemolysis. After risk adjustment, there was no significant difference in long-term survival between patients who underwent surgical versus transcatheter treatment of PVLs.
CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary practice, patients with symptomatic mitral PVLs are best treated with an integrated team approach incorporating both surgical and percutaneous techniques. Patient selection and timing of intervention are critical to achieve optimal results.
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous treatment of mitral PVL has emerged as an alternative to surgical treatment in high-risk surgical candidates. There are limited data on the utilization trends, safety, and efficacy of both procedures in the management of mitral PVL.
METHODS: Patients who underwent treatment of mitral PVL at the Mayo Clinic between January 1995 and December 2015 were enrolled. Utilization trends, procedural details, technical success, and in-hospital and long-term outcomes were assessed.
RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-one patients underwent percutaneous (n = 195) or surgical (n = 186) treatment of mitral PVLs. The mean age was 66 ± 12 years, and 37% of patients had bioprosthetic valves. Technical success was higher in the surgical group (95.5% vs. 70.1%; p < 0.001). In-hospital major adverse events were more common after surgery (22.5% vs. 7.7%; p < 0.001). In-hospital death occurred in 3.1% and 8.6% of patients undergoing percutaneous and surgical treatment, respectively (p = 0.027). However, in a multivariate logistic regression analysis, only active endocarditis, chronic renal failure, and severe mitral annular calcifications were significant predictors of in-hospital mortality. Reintervention rates were similar (11.3% vs. 17.2% in the percutaneous and surgical groups, respectively; p = 0.10), with the majority of reinterventions in the percutaneous group occurring early because of residual leak or persistent hemolysis. After risk adjustment, there was no significant difference in long-term survival between patients who underwent surgical versus transcatheter treatment of PVLs.
CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary practice, patients with symptomatic mitral PVLs are best treated with an integrated team approach incorporating both surgical and percutaneous techniques. Patient selection and timing of intervention are critical to achieve optimal results.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedBioprosthesisCardiac CatheterizationChi-Square DistributionDevice RemovalFemaleHeart Valve ProsthesisHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationHospital MortalityHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedMinnesotaMitral ValveMitral Valve InsufficiencyMultivariate AnalysisOdds RatioProportional Hazards ModelsProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureReoperationRisk FactorsTertiary Care CentersTime FactorsTreatment Outcome