The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2024
Robotic Aortic Valve Replacement vs Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Jagadeesan Vikrant, Mehaffey J Hunter, Darehzereshki Ali, Alharbi Anas, Kawsara Mohammad, Daggubati Ramesh, Wei Lawrence, Badhwar Vinay
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Current evidence supports equipoise between surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and transcatheter AVR (TAVR) for the management of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). The optimal interventional management for lower-risk patients is controversial. Minimally invasive robotic AVR (RAVR) was developed as a potential option.
METHODS: A total of 605 consecutive patients (2017-2023) managed by the identical structural heart team, 174 RAVR and 431 TAVR, were propensity matched and evaluated for in-hospital and 1-year outcomes.
RESULTS: There were 288 low- to intermediate-risk (The Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality <8%) patients matched in 2 well-balanced groups (144 RAVR vs 144 TAVR). In-hospital and 30-day mortality were similar. There were 2 conversions to sternotomy in the TAVR group (cardiac arrest and coronary occlusion) and none in the RAVR group. Eight RAVR patients (5.6%) required reoperation for hemothorax evacuation. TAVR was associated with higher new pacemaker (11 vs 3, P = .028) and major vascular complications (13 vs 0, P < .0001), and a higher postprocedural stroke trend (6 vs 1, P = .056). There was no difference in 30-day transfusions, atrial fibrillation, or 1-year mean valve gradients. However, 1-year mortality (12.5% vs 1.4%, P < .0001) and paravalvular leak greater than mild (32.6% vs 2.3%, P < 0.0001) were significantly higher in TAVR.
CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight lower pacemaker and vascular complications, as well as less 1-year paravalvular leak and mortality with RAVR compared with TAVR. RAVR may provide a safe and effective minimally invasive alternative to TAVR for low- and intermediate-risk patients presenting with severe symptomatic AS.
METHODS: A total of 605 consecutive patients (2017-2023) managed by the identical structural heart team, 174 RAVR and 431 TAVR, were propensity matched and evaluated for in-hospital and 1-year outcomes.
RESULTS: There were 288 low- to intermediate-risk (The Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality <8%) patients matched in 2 well-balanced groups (144 RAVR vs 144 TAVR). In-hospital and 30-day mortality were similar. There were 2 conversions to sternotomy in the TAVR group (cardiac arrest and coronary occlusion) and none in the RAVR group. Eight RAVR patients (5.6%) required reoperation for hemothorax evacuation. TAVR was associated with higher new pacemaker (11 vs 3, P = .028) and major vascular complications (13 vs 0, P < .0001), and a higher postprocedural stroke trend (6 vs 1, P = .056). There was no difference in 30-day transfusions, atrial fibrillation, or 1-year mean valve gradients. However, 1-year mortality (12.5% vs 1.4%, P < .0001) and paravalvular leak greater than mild (32.6% vs 2.3%, P < 0.0001) were significantly higher in TAVR.
CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight lower pacemaker and vascular complications, as well as less 1-year paravalvular leak and mortality with RAVR compared with TAVR. RAVR may provide a safe and effective minimally invasive alternative to TAVR for low- and intermediate-risk patients presenting with severe symptomatic AS.