The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2020
Aortic Valve Repair Versus Replacement Associated With Durable Left Ventricular Assist Devices.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Tang Paul C, Sarsour Nadeen, Haft Jonathan W, Romano Matthew A, Konerman Matthew, Colvin Monica, Koelling Todd, Aaronson Keith D, Pagani Francis D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Aortic valve (AV) repair (AVr) using a central coaptation stitch or bioprosthetic AV replacement (AVR) are most commonly performed at the time of durable left ventricular assist device implant to address AV insufficiency (AI).
METHODS: Prospective data collection on 46 patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implant from 2007 through 2018 who received concomitant AVr (n = 40) or AVR (n = 6) was retrospectively analyzed to assess freedom from recurrent aortic insufficiency. Paired Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare echocardiographic findings. Mantel-Cox statistics were used to analyze survival.
RESULTS: For AVr, central coaptation led to a mean decrease in AI severity by 2.1 ± 1.0 grades (P < .001). Three patients (7.5%) had recurrence of at least moderate AI by 3 years. In comparison, all patients in the AVR group had mild or less AI on subsequent follow-up. Success of AVr in downgrading AI severity was associated with a smaller aortic root diameter (P = .011) and sinotubular junction diameter (P = .003). An aortic root diameter greater than 3.5 cm was predictive of less improvement in AI severity compared with 3.5 cm or less (1.83 ± 1.03 versus 2.47 ± 0.80 grades of improvement; P = .038). Duration of cardiopulmonary bypass was 32 minutes longer and duration of aortic cross-clamp was 38 minutes longer for AVR versus AVr cohorts. No difference in 30-day (P = .418) or overall survival (P = .572) between the AVr and AVR groups was seen.
CONCLUSIONS: Aortic valve repair for addressing AI has a recurrence rate of 7.5% at 3 years. Success in downgrading AI is more likely with a smaller aortic root. No difference in survival was observed between AVr and AVR.
METHODS: Prospective data collection on 46 patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implant from 2007 through 2018 who received concomitant AVr (n = 40) or AVR (n = 6) was retrospectively analyzed to assess freedom from recurrent aortic insufficiency. Paired Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare echocardiographic findings. Mantel-Cox statistics were used to analyze survival.
RESULTS: For AVr, central coaptation led to a mean decrease in AI severity by 2.1 ± 1.0 grades (P < .001). Three patients (7.5%) had recurrence of at least moderate AI by 3 years. In comparison, all patients in the AVR group had mild or less AI on subsequent follow-up. Success of AVr in downgrading AI severity was associated with a smaller aortic root diameter (P = .011) and sinotubular junction diameter (P = .003). An aortic root diameter greater than 3.5 cm was predictive of less improvement in AI severity compared with 3.5 cm or less (1.83 ± 1.03 versus 2.47 ± 0.80 grades of improvement; P = .038). Duration of cardiopulmonary bypass was 32 minutes longer and duration of aortic cross-clamp was 38 minutes longer for AVR versus AVr cohorts. No difference in 30-day (P = .418) or overall survival (P = .572) between the AVr and AVR groups was seen.
CONCLUSIONS: Aortic valve repair for addressing AI has a recurrence rate of 7.5% at 3 years. Success in downgrading AI is more likely with a smaller aortic root. No difference in survival was observed between AVr and AVR.