The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2023
Aortic Valve Repair Results in Better 1-Year Survival Than Replacement: Results From German Aortic Valve Registry.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Girdauskas Evaldas, Balaban Ümniye, Herrmann Eva, Bauer Timm, Beckmann Andreas, Bekeredjian Raffi, Ensminger Stephan, Frerker Christian, Möllmann Helge, Petersen Johannes, Walther Thomas, Bleiziffer Sabine
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Aortic valve (AV) repair is an evolving surgical strategy in the treatment of nonelderly adults with aortic regurgitation. We aimed to determine the 1-year outcome after AV repair vs surgical AV replacement (sAVR) using real-world data from the German Aortic Valve Registry.
METHODS: A total of 8076 aortic regurgitation patients (mean age, 59.1 ± 15.0 years; 76% men; mean The Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, 1.3 ± 1.1), who underwent AV surgical procedures between 2011 and 2015, were identified from German Aortic Valve Registry. The AV was repaired in 2327 patients (29%), and the remaining 5749 patients (71%) underwent sAVR. A weighted propensity score model, including the variables of age, sex, and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, was used to correct for baseline differences between AV repair and sAVR cohorts. The primary end point was 1-year survival after AV repair vs sAVR. Secondary end points were freedom from cardiac events and AV reinterventions.
RESULTS: Survival at 1 year was 97.7% (95% CI, 97.0%-98.5%) in the AV repair cohort vs 96.4% (95% CI, 95.9%-96.9%) in the propensity score-weighted sAVR cohort (log-rank P < .001). Cox regression revealed a significant advantage of AV repair vs sAVR (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51-0.90; P < .0001) on 1-year survival, which was independent of age. Cardiac event-free survival at 1 year was 85.7% (95% CI, 483.8%-87.7%) in the AV repair group vs 81.7% (95% CI, 80.7%-82.9%) in the sAVR group (log-rank P < .001). AV reintervention was required in 38 AV repair patients (1.6%) compared with 1.6% in the sAVR cohort (P = .59).
CONCLUSIONS: AV repair surgery, whenever intraoperatively feasible, is associated with a significantly better 1-year survival and 1-year cardiac event-free survival compared with sAVR.
METHODS: A total of 8076 aortic regurgitation patients (mean age, 59.1 ± 15.0 years; 76% men; mean The Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, 1.3 ± 1.1), who underwent AV surgical procedures between 2011 and 2015, were identified from German Aortic Valve Registry. The AV was repaired in 2327 patients (29%), and the remaining 5749 patients (71%) underwent sAVR. A weighted propensity score model, including the variables of age, sex, and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, was used to correct for baseline differences between AV repair and sAVR cohorts. The primary end point was 1-year survival after AV repair vs sAVR. Secondary end points were freedom from cardiac events and AV reinterventions.
RESULTS: Survival at 1 year was 97.7% (95% CI, 97.0%-98.5%) in the AV repair cohort vs 96.4% (95% CI, 95.9%-96.9%) in the propensity score-weighted sAVR cohort (log-rank P < .001). Cox regression revealed a significant advantage of AV repair vs sAVR (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51-0.90; P < .0001) on 1-year survival, which was independent of age. Cardiac event-free survival at 1 year was 85.7% (95% CI, 483.8%-87.7%) in the AV repair group vs 81.7% (95% CI, 80.7%-82.9%) in the sAVR group (log-rank P < .001). AV reintervention was required in 38 AV repair patients (1.6%) compared with 1.6% in the sAVR cohort (P = .59).
CONCLUSIONS: AV repair surgery, whenever intraoperatively feasible, is associated with a significantly better 1-year survival and 1-year cardiac event-free survival compared with sAVR.