Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2023
VARC-3 defined outcome of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation in stentless compared with stented aortic bioprostheses.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Steul Jean-Honoré, Abdel-Wahab Mohamed, Stankowski Tomasz, Haussig Stephan, Woitek Felix J, Gasior Tomasz, Crusius Lisa, Knorr Luise, Müller Felicitas V, Fritzsche Dirk, Kiefer Philipp, Kappert Utz, Holzhey David, Linke Axel, Mangner Norman
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a viable alternative to redo surgery in selected patients with bioprosthetic valve dysfunction. Most ViV-TAVI procedures have been performed in stented bioprosthetic valves (ST); stentless bioprostheses (SL) lack fluoroscopic markers and could be more challenging for ViV-TAVI. Data on more recent patients applying Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3 defined outcomes are scarce. We compared patient characteristics, procedural outcomes, and 5-year mortality of patients with SL versus ST aortic bioprosthetic valve failure undergoing ViV-TAVI.
METHODS: Patients undergoing ViV-TAVI between 2007 and 2022 (52.5% of cases after 2015) at 3 German centers were included in this analysis. The co-primary outcome measures were technical success, device success, and early safety defined by VARC-3. Mortality was assessed up to 5 years.
RESULTS: Overall, 43 (11.8%) SL and 313 (88.2%) ST ViV-TAVI were included. Patients were comparable with regard to age, sex, clinically relevant baseline comorbidities, and surgical risk. Technical success (SL: 83.7% versus ST: 79.9%, p = 0.552), device success (SL: 67.4% versus ST: 54.3%, p = 0.105), and early safety (SL: 74.4% versus ST: 66.5%, p = 0.296) were comparable between groups. The 30-day mortality (SL: 7.0% versus ST: 2.6%, p = 0.136) and 5-year mortality rates (SL: 23.3% versus ST: 24.6%, p = 0.874) were not significantly different between groups.
CONCLUSION: SL and ST ViV-TAVI led to comparable short-term outcomes according to VARC-3- defined endpoints and similar mortality rates up to 5 years of follow-up.
METHODS: Patients undergoing ViV-TAVI between 2007 and 2022 (52.5% of cases after 2015) at 3 German centers were included in this analysis. The co-primary outcome measures were technical success, device success, and early safety defined by VARC-3. Mortality was assessed up to 5 years.
RESULTS: Overall, 43 (11.8%) SL and 313 (88.2%) ST ViV-TAVI were included. Patients were comparable with regard to age, sex, clinically relevant baseline comorbidities, and surgical risk. Technical success (SL: 83.7% versus ST: 79.9%, p = 0.552), device success (SL: 67.4% versus ST: 54.3%, p = 0.105), and early safety (SL: 74.4% versus ST: 66.5%, p = 0.296) were comparable between groups. The 30-day mortality (SL: 7.0% versus ST: 2.6%, p = 0.136) and 5-year mortality rates (SL: 23.3% versus ST: 24.6%, p = 0.874) were not significantly different between groups.
CONCLUSION: SL and ST ViV-TAVI led to comparable short-term outcomes according to VARC-3- defined endpoints and similar mortality rates up to 5 years of follow-up.