Open heart · 2024
Midterm outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with active cancer.
СтатьяПоддержка 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.
Noguchi Masahiko, Tabata Minoru, Ito Joji, Kato Nahoko, Obunai Kotaro, Watanabe Hiroyuki, Yashima Fumiaki, Watanabe Yusuke, Naganuma Toru, Yamawaki Masahiro, Yamanaka Futoshi, Shirai Shinichi, Ueno Hiroshi, Tada Norio, Yamamoto Masanori, Hayashida Kentaro, OCEAN-TAVI investigators
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and concomitant active cancer remain insufficiently explored. This study aimed to assess the midterm outcomes of TAVR in patients diagnosed with AS and active cancer.
METHODS: Data from the OCEAN-TAVI, a prospective Japanese registry of TAVR procedures, was analysed to compare prognoses and clinical outcomes in patients with and without active cancer at the time of TAVR.
RESULTS: Of the 2336 patients who underwent TAVR from October 2013 to July 2017, 89 patients (3.8%) had active cancer, whereas 2247 did not. Among patients with active cancer, 49 had limited-stage cancer (stage 1 or 2). The prevalent cancers identified before TAVR were colon (21%), prostate (18%), lung (15%), liver (11%) and breast (9%). Although the periprocedural complications and 30-day mortality rates were comparable between the groups, the 3-year survival rate after TAVR was notably lower in patients with active cancer (64.7%) than in those without active cancer (74.7%; p=0.016). Nevertheless, the 3-year survival rate of patients with limited-stage cancer (stage 1 or 2) did not significantly differ from those without cancer (70.6% vs 74.7%, p=0.50).
CONCLUSIONS: The patients with active cancer exhibited significantly reduced midterm survival rates. However, no distinct disparity existed in those with limited-stage cancer (stage 1 or 2). Although TAVR is a viable treatment in patients with AS with active cancer, the type and stage of cancer and prognosis should be carefully weighed in the decision-making process.
METHODS: Data from the OCEAN-TAVI, a prospective Japanese registry of TAVR procedures, was analysed to compare prognoses and clinical outcomes in patients with and without active cancer at the time of TAVR.
RESULTS: Of the 2336 patients who underwent TAVR from October 2013 to July 2017, 89 patients (3.8%) had active cancer, whereas 2247 did not. Among patients with active cancer, 49 had limited-stage cancer (stage 1 or 2). The prevalent cancers identified before TAVR were colon (21%), prostate (18%), lung (15%), liver (11%) and breast (9%). Although the periprocedural complications and 30-day mortality rates were comparable between the groups, the 3-year survival rate after TAVR was notably lower in patients with active cancer (64.7%) than in those without active cancer (74.7%; p=0.016). Nevertheless, the 3-year survival rate of patients with limited-stage cancer (stage 1 or 2) did not significantly differ from those without cancer (70.6% vs 74.7%, p=0.50).
CONCLUSIONS: The patients with active cancer exhibited significantly reduced midterm survival rates. However, no distinct disparity existed in those with limited-stage cancer (stage 1 or 2). Although TAVR is a viable treatment in patients with AS with active cancer, the type and stage of cancer and prognosis should be carefully weighed in the decision-making process.