Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2024
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgery: 4-year survival according to life expectancy.
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.
Lodo Vittoria, Italiano Enrico G, Zingarelli Edoardo, Pietropaolo Claudio, Pidello Stefano, Buono Gabriella, Centofanti Paolo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In the last years, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) indication has expanded to younger and lower risk patients. Consequently, interest in mid and long-term follow up and in the role of life expectancy, as a key factor for selecting the most tailored treatment, has grown. The aim of this retrospective study is to compare the 4-year survival of patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) vs. TAVI at our department.
METHODS: From September 2017 to December 2020, 673 consecutive patients with severe aortic valve stenosis were enrolled for AVR (n = 283) or TAVI (n = 390). Inclusion criteria was isolated severe aortic stenosis, while exclusion criteria were redo surgery, valve-in-valve procedure and the need for concomitant surgical procedures. Based on the Lee index, patients were divided into four groups according to their 4-year life expectancy. Four-year survival was assessed and reported using the Kaplan-Meier method. A multivariate regression analysis of risk factors for 4-year mortality was performed.
RESULTS: Four years survival is always superior in the AVR patients (89.8% vs. 75.6%, P < 0.001). Surgery is associated with a higher incidence of acute kidney injury (23% vs. 5.1%, P < 0.001), while TAVI is related to a higher incidence of new onset left bundle branch block (0 vs. 23.8%, P < 0.001), pace-maker implantation (2.5% vs. 11.8%, P = 0,02) and mild-to-moderate paravalvular leak (0.3% vs. 5.4%, P < 0.001). The independent risk factors for 4-years mortality are post-procedural AKI, poor mobility and transcatheter procedure.
CONCLUSION: In our analysis, 4 years survival is always superior in the AVR patients. Life expectancy is a key factor for selecting the most appropriate approach for each patient. A longer follow up is mandatory before extending TAVI indication to patients with a long-life expectancy.
METHODS: From September 2017 to December 2020, 673 consecutive patients with severe aortic valve stenosis were enrolled for AVR (n = 283) or TAVI (n = 390). Inclusion criteria was isolated severe aortic stenosis, while exclusion criteria were redo surgery, valve-in-valve procedure and the need for concomitant surgical procedures. Based on the Lee index, patients were divided into four groups according to their 4-year life expectancy. Four-year survival was assessed and reported using the Kaplan-Meier method. A multivariate regression analysis of risk factors for 4-year mortality was performed.
RESULTS: Four years survival is always superior in the AVR patients (89.8% vs. 75.6%, P < 0.001). Surgery is associated with a higher incidence of acute kidney injury (23% vs. 5.1%, P < 0.001), while TAVI is related to a higher incidence of new onset left bundle branch block (0 vs. 23.8%, P < 0.001), pace-maker implantation (2.5% vs. 11.8%, P = 0,02) and mild-to-moderate paravalvular leak (0.3% vs. 5.4%, P < 0.001). The independent risk factors for 4-years mortality are post-procedural AKI, poor mobility and transcatheter procedure.
CONCLUSION: In our analysis, 4 years survival is always superior in the AVR patients. Life expectancy is a key factor for selecting the most appropriate approach for each patient. A longer follow up is mandatory before extending TAVI indication to patients with a long-life expectancy.