The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2024
Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Analysis of the PARTNER Trials.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое 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.
Thourani Vinod H, Abbas Amr E, Ternacle Julien, Hahn Rebecca T, Makkar Raj, Kodali Susheel K, George Isaac, Kapadia Samir, Svensson Lars G, Szeto Wilson Y, Herrmann Howard C, Ailawadi Gorav, Leipsic Jonathon, Blanke Philipp, Webb John, Jaber Wael A, Russo Mark, Malaisrie S Chris, Yadav Pradeep, Clavel Marie-Annick, Khalique Omar K, Weissman Neil J, Douglas Pamela, Bax Jeroen, Dahou Abdellaziz, Xu Ke, Bapat Vinayak, Alu Maria C, Leon Martin B, Mack Michael J, Pibarot Philippe
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Our objective was to compare the impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) for 2 years after surgical aortic valve replacement within the prospective, randomized Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trials.
METHODS: Surgical aortic valve replacement patients from the PARTNER 1, 2, and 3 trials were included. PPM was classified as moderate (indexed effective orifice area ≤0.85 cm2/m2) or severe (indexed effective orifice area ≤0.65 cm2/m2). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death and heart failure rehospitalization at 2 years.
RESULTS: By the predicted PPM method (PPMP), 59.1% had no PPM, 38.8% moderate PPM, and 2.1% severe PPM; whereas by the measured PPM method (PPMM), 42.4% had no PPM, 36.0% moderate, and 21.6% severe. Patients with no PPMP (23.6%) had a lower rate of the primary endpoint compared with patients with moderate (28.2%, P = .03) or severe PPMP (38.8%, P = .02). Using the PPMM method, there was no difference between the no (17.7%) and moderate PPMM groups (21.1%) in the primary outcome (P = .16). However, those with no PPMM or moderate PPMM were improved compared with severe PPMM (27.4%, P < .001 and P = .02, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Severe PPM analyzed by PPMP was only 2.1% for surgical aortic valve replacement patients. The PPMM method overestimated the incidence of severe PPM relative to PPMP, but was also associated with worse outcome. There was higher all-cause mortality in patients with severe PPM, thus surgical techniques to minimize PPM remain critical.
METHODS: Surgical aortic valve replacement patients from the PARTNER 1, 2, and 3 trials were included. PPM was classified as moderate (indexed effective orifice area ≤0.85 cm2/m2) or severe (indexed effective orifice area ≤0.65 cm2/m2). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death and heart failure rehospitalization at 2 years.
RESULTS: By the predicted PPM method (PPMP), 59.1% had no PPM, 38.8% moderate PPM, and 2.1% severe PPM; whereas by the measured PPM method (PPMM), 42.4% had no PPM, 36.0% moderate, and 21.6% severe. Patients with no PPMP (23.6%) had a lower rate of the primary endpoint compared with patients with moderate (28.2%, P = .03) or severe PPMP (38.8%, P = .02). Using the PPMM method, there was no difference between the no (17.7%) and moderate PPMM groups (21.1%) in the primary outcome (P = .16). However, those with no PPMM or moderate PPMM were improved compared with severe PPMM (27.4%, P < .001 and P = .02, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Severe PPM analyzed by PPMP was only 2.1% for surgical aortic valve replacement patients. The PPMM method overestimated the incidence of severe PPM relative to PPMP, but was also associated with worse outcome. There was higher all-cause mortality in patients with severe PPM, thus surgical techniques to minimize PPM remain critical.