Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2020
Impact of paroxysmal versus non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation on outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter mitral valve repair.
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.
Gangani Kishorbhai, Alkhaimy Haytham, Patil Nikita, Sitammagari Kranthi, Bhyan Poonam, Arora Sameer, Vavalle John P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To study the impact of type of atrial fibrillation on outcomes following transcatheter mitral valve repair. The development of atrial fibrillation (AF) in degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) can be a sign of progression of MR and associated with adverse outcomes. However, the impact of type of AF in patients undergoing transcatheter mitral valve (MV) repair remains uncertain.
METHODS: Patients 18 years or older who underwent TMVR procedure in 2016 and had a concurrent ICD-10 diagnosis of either paroxysmal or non-paroxysmal AF were included from Nationwide Readmission Database (NRD). The association between type of AF and mortality, stroke, readmission (cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular readmissions) and composite outcome (mortality, inpatient stroke or 30-day readmissions) was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software 9.4 was used to conduct the analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 913 (weighted N=1,750) TMVR hospitalizations from NRD for year 2016 were included. Of these, 510 (weighted N=995) patients had non-paroxysmal AF and 403 (weighted N=755) had paroxysmal AF. Patients with non-paroxysmal AF were older than paroxysmal AF (82.53 vs. 81.27; P=0.0004). As compared to paroxysmal AF, those with non-paroxysmal AF had comparable odds of composite outcome of stroke, readmission, or mortality (OR 1.31; 95% CI: 0.77-2.23), as well as stroke (OR 0.43; 95% CI: 0.10-1.78), or mortality (OR 0.54; 95% CI: 0.21-1.37), in patients undergoing TMVR. Similarly, no differences were noted in the odds of cardiac readmissions (OR 1.38; 95% CI: 0.83-2.28), non-cardiac readmissions (OR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.49-1.32) and discharge to skilled nursing/short term care (OR 1.24; 95% CI: 0.66-2.36) in those with non-paroxysmal vs. paroxysmal AF.
CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient outcomes and readmissions were similar in patient with paroxysmal and non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in this study. Future studies exploring the effect of type of atrial fibrillation on long term outcomes are needed.
METHODS: Patients 18 years or older who underwent TMVR procedure in 2016 and had a concurrent ICD-10 diagnosis of either paroxysmal or non-paroxysmal AF were included from Nationwide Readmission Database (NRD). The association between type of AF and mortality, stroke, readmission (cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular readmissions) and composite outcome (mortality, inpatient stroke or 30-day readmissions) was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software 9.4 was used to conduct the analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 913 (weighted N=1,750) TMVR hospitalizations from NRD for year 2016 were included. Of these, 510 (weighted N=995) patients had non-paroxysmal AF and 403 (weighted N=755) had paroxysmal AF. Patients with non-paroxysmal AF were older than paroxysmal AF (82.53 vs. 81.27; P=0.0004). As compared to paroxysmal AF, those with non-paroxysmal AF had comparable odds of composite outcome of stroke, readmission, or mortality (OR 1.31; 95% CI: 0.77-2.23), as well as stroke (OR 0.43; 95% CI: 0.10-1.78), or mortality (OR 0.54; 95% CI: 0.21-1.37), in patients undergoing TMVR. Similarly, no differences were noted in the odds of cardiac readmissions (OR 1.38; 95% CI: 0.83-2.28), non-cardiac readmissions (OR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.49-1.32) and discharge to skilled nursing/short term care (OR 1.24; 95% CI: 0.66-2.36) in those with non-paroxysmal vs. paroxysmal AF.
CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient outcomes and readmissions were similar in patient with paroxysmal and non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in this study. Future studies exploring the effect of type of atrial fibrillation on long term outcomes are needed.