The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2021
Clinical and Echocardiographic Results of Aortic Valve Replacement in the Failing Ventricle: Do Aortic Stenosis and Aortic Regurgitation Differ?
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.
Ibrahim Michael, Spelde Audrey E, Szeto Wilson Y, Acker Michael A, Atluri Pavan, Grimm Joshua C, Cevasco Marisa, Vallabhajosyula Prasanth, Bavaria Joseph, Desai Nimesh D, Williams Matthew L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that long-term clinical and echocardiographic recovery of the impaired ventricle from pressure (aortic stenosis [AS]) and volume (aortic regurgitation [AR]) overload would be different after aortic valve replacement (AVR).
METHODS: We compared the results of AVR in patients with a preoperative ejection fraction (EF) of 0.35 or less due to AS, AR, or mixed disease. We constructed a mixed-effects model of EF and left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) to understand ventricular recovery over the short- (in-hospital), intermediate- (3-6 months), and longer- (>24 months) terms. We sought to identify factors associated with clinical and echocardiographic recovery using multivariable analysis.
RESULTS: Between July 2011 and 2017, 136 patients with a preoperative EF of 0.35 or less and severe AS (n = 83), severe AR (n = 18), or mixed AS and AR (n = 35) underwent AVR. There were 2 (1.5%) early deaths in the AS group. Survival at 1, 2, and 5 years did not differ between groups. Baseline EF did not differ between the groups but improved with markedly different trajectory and time course in the AS, AR, and mixed groups over time. LVEDD regressed in all patient cohorts, following a different pattern for AS and AR. Baseline EF and LVEDD predicted the long-term fate of the LV but did not determine survival. We identify factors associated with long-term survival.
CONCLUSIONS: The pattern of LV recovery appears to be early in AS and delayed in AR. Baseline clinical factors, rather than echocardiographic status of the LV, appear to determine late survival.
METHODS: We compared the results of AVR in patients with a preoperative ejection fraction (EF) of 0.35 or less due to AS, AR, or mixed disease. We constructed a mixed-effects model of EF and left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) to understand ventricular recovery over the short- (in-hospital), intermediate- (3-6 months), and longer- (>24 months) terms. We sought to identify factors associated with clinical and echocardiographic recovery using multivariable analysis.
RESULTS: Between July 2011 and 2017, 136 patients with a preoperative EF of 0.35 or less and severe AS (n = 83), severe AR (n = 18), or mixed AS and AR (n = 35) underwent AVR. There were 2 (1.5%) early deaths in the AS group. Survival at 1, 2, and 5 years did not differ between groups. Baseline EF did not differ between the groups but improved with markedly different trajectory and time course in the AS, AR, and mixed groups over time. LVEDD regressed in all patient cohorts, following a different pattern for AS and AR. Baseline EF and LVEDD predicted the long-term fate of the LV but did not determine survival. We identify factors associated with long-term survival.
CONCLUSIONS: The pattern of LV recovery appears to be early in AS and delayed in AR. Baseline clinical factors, rather than echocardiographic status of the LV, appear to determine late survival.