Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2023
Minimally Invasive Surgical Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Retrospective Observational Single-Center Study in Japan.
Наблюдательное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Yamamoto Hiroyuki, Nakayama Taisuke, Ishii Naoki, Nakamura Yoshitsugu
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the outcomes of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MICS-AVR) versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) in Asian patients.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational, single-center study in Japan, including cases of MICS-AVR (n = 202) and TF-TAVR (n = 248) between 2014 and 2021. In a total of 450 cases, propensity score matching was performed at a ratio of 1:1, resulting in 96 pairs. Furthermore, we performed competing-risk regression and mediation analyses to determine the treatment effect on outcomes of interests, considering death as a competing risk, and to evaluate the mediation effect of paravalvular leak (PVL) severity.
RESULTS: There were similar incidences of all-cause death, cardiac death, stroke and cerebral hemorrhage, and aortic valve reintervention between the 2 groups. However, the TF-TAVR cohort had a longer hospital length of stay and higher rates of significant PVL compared with the MICS-AVR cohort. Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression analyses revealed that heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.129, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.038 to 0.445, p = 0.001) and permanent pacemaker implantation (HR = 0.050, 95% CI: 0.006 to 0.409, p = 0.005) favored MICS-AVR. Competing-risk regression analyses confirmed similar findings. All outcomes were unrelated to PVL severity.
CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first comparative study of clinical outcomes in Asian patients undergoing MICS-AVR versus TF-TAVR, revealing that MICS-AVR could be a feasible and efficient alternative to TF-TAVR. Future larger-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to validate the present results.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational, single-center study in Japan, including cases of MICS-AVR (n = 202) and TF-TAVR (n = 248) between 2014 and 2021. In a total of 450 cases, propensity score matching was performed at a ratio of 1:1, resulting in 96 pairs. Furthermore, we performed competing-risk regression and mediation analyses to determine the treatment effect on outcomes of interests, considering death as a competing risk, and to evaluate the mediation effect of paravalvular leak (PVL) severity.
RESULTS: There were similar incidences of all-cause death, cardiac death, stroke and cerebral hemorrhage, and aortic valve reintervention between the 2 groups. However, the TF-TAVR cohort had a longer hospital length of stay and higher rates of significant PVL compared with the MICS-AVR cohort. Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression analyses revealed that heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.129, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.038 to 0.445, p = 0.001) and permanent pacemaker implantation (HR = 0.050, 95% CI: 0.006 to 0.409, p = 0.005) favored MICS-AVR. Competing-risk regression analyses confirmed similar findings. All outcomes were unrelated to PVL severity.
CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first comparative study of clinical outcomes in Asian patients undergoing MICS-AVR versus TF-TAVR, revealing that MICS-AVR could be a feasible and efficient alternative to TF-TAVR. Future larger-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to validate the present results.