International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2025
Paradoxical clinical outcomes of severe versus very severe aortic valve stenosis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation? a propensity score matched analysis and review of literature.
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.
Hammerer Matthias, Boxhammer Elke, Prinz Erika, Scharinger Bernhard, Wintersteller Wilfried, Hoppe Uta C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Very severe aortic stenosis (VSAS) is a critical condition with unfavourable clinical outcomes if left untreated or treated by surgical valve replacement. In contrast, after transcatheter valve implantation (TAVI) outcomes seem to be similar or - paradoxically - even better compared to severe aortic stenosis (SAS), as indicated by previous studies.
METHODS: Data of patients from a single centre who underwent TAVI were retrospectively analysed. Patients with concordant AS (n = 475) were divided into SAS (n = 379) and VSAS (n = 96) groups. These groups are compared in terms of procedural (safety) and long-term (efficacy) outcomes, using propensity score matching. In addition, a review of relevant literature is provided.
RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 96 patients remained in each group. Procedural outcomes did not differ significantly between VSAS and SAS groups. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis showed a favourable trend toward lower overall mortality within a mean follow-up of 42 months after TAVI in the VSAS group (hazard ratio, HR, 0.668; 95 % confidence interval, CI, 0.430-1.038). This difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.073), however, it was significant in the subgroups of females (p = 0.045) and patients with NYHA class III (p = 0.043).
CONCLUSION: Our analysis confirms - in line with previous studies - that patients with VSAS represent a substantial subgroup and have at least as favourable or - paradoxically -even better clinical results after TAVI compared to patients with SAS. Therefore, TAVI should not be withheld from these patients.
METHODS: Data of patients from a single centre who underwent TAVI were retrospectively analysed. Patients with concordant AS (n = 475) were divided into SAS (n = 379) and VSAS (n = 96) groups. These groups are compared in terms of procedural (safety) and long-term (efficacy) outcomes, using propensity score matching. In addition, a review of relevant literature is provided.
RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 96 patients remained in each group. Procedural outcomes did not differ significantly between VSAS and SAS groups. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis showed a favourable trend toward lower overall mortality within a mean follow-up of 42 months after TAVI in the VSAS group (hazard ratio, HR, 0.668; 95 % confidence interval, CI, 0.430-1.038). This difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.073), however, it was significant in the subgroups of females (p = 0.045) and patients with NYHA class III (p = 0.043).
CONCLUSION: Our analysis confirms - in line with previous studies - that patients with VSAS represent a substantial subgroup and have at least as favourable or - paradoxically -even better clinical results after TAVI compared to patients with SAS. Therefore, TAVI should not be withheld from these patients.