Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions · 2020
Outcomes Following Shock Aortic Valve Replacement: Transcatheter Versus Surgical Approaches.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Maidman Samuel D, Lisko John C, Kamioka Norihiko, Chen Edward P, Mavromatis Kreton, Halkos Michael, Stewart James P, Lattouf Omar M, Keeling W Brent, Gleason Patrick, Sommerfeld Alex J, Maini Aneesha, Ibrahim Akram W, Grubb Kendra J, Leshnower Bradley G, Guyton Robert, Greenbaum Adam B, Block Peter C, Babaliaros Vasilis C, Devireddy Chandan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients in shock.
BACKGROUND: There are minimal data on the clinical and echocardiographic outcomes for patients in shock that undergo TAVR and no data comparing these outcomes to similar patients undergoing SAVR.
METHODS: This is a single center, retrospective cohort study of patients having Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)-defined urgent or emergent AVR for aortic stenosis with clinical signs and symptoms of shock. Inclusion criteria were based on the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) shock consensus statement and included: the need for inotropic or vasopressor agents, mechanical ventilation, continuous renal replacement therapy or newly initiated hemodialysis, and/or utilization of mechanical hemodynamic support. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes for TAVR and SAVR were compared.
RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients met the inclusion criteria for this study (17 TAVR, 20 SAVR). TAVR patients had a higher STS Predicted Risk of Mortality (PROM) score of 22.3% compared to 11.8% for SAVR patients (p = 0.001). No significant differences were found in baseline echocardiographic results. TAVR procedures required less procedure room time (185.9 min TAVR, 348.5 min SAVR, p < 0.001) and fewer intraoperative packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfusions (0.2 units TAVR, 3.4 units SAVR, p < 0.001). TAVR patients also had lower rates of prolonged postoperative ventilation compared to SAVR patients (38.5% TAVR, 75.0% SAVR, p = 0.047). TAVR and SAVR had similar rates of mortality at discharge (2 TAVR, 1 SAVR, p = 0.584), 30-days (2 TAVR, 1 SAVR, p = 0.584), and 1-year (8 TAVR, 5 SAVR, p = 0.149).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher risk TAVR group, patients in shock undergoing either TAVR or SAVR have similar 30-day mortality. At one year, SAVR patients have a numerically better, though not statistically significant, survival. These findings support the use of TAVR for patients in shock with aortic stenosis.
BACKGROUND: There are minimal data on the clinical and echocardiographic outcomes for patients in shock that undergo TAVR and no data comparing these outcomes to similar patients undergoing SAVR.
METHODS: This is a single center, retrospective cohort study of patients having Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)-defined urgent or emergent AVR for aortic stenosis with clinical signs and symptoms of shock. Inclusion criteria were based on the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) shock consensus statement and included: the need for inotropic or vasopressor agents, mechanical ventilation, continuous renal replacement therapy or newly initiated hemodialysis, and/or utilization of mechanical hemodynamic support. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes for TAVR and SAVR were compared.
RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients met the inclusion criteria for this study (17 TAVR, 20 SAVR). TAVR patients had a higher STS Predicted Risk of Mortality (PROM) score of 22.3% compared to 11.8% for SAVR patients (p = 0.001). No significant differences were found in baseline echocardiographic results. TAVR procedures required less procedure room time (185.9 min TAVR, 348.5 min SAVR, p < 0.001) and fewer intraoperative packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfusions (0.2 units TAVR, 3.4 units SAVR, p < 0.001). TAVR patients also had lower rates of prolonged postoperative ventilation compared to SAVR patients (38.5% TAVR, 75.0% SAVR, p = 0.047). TAVR and SAVR had similar rates of mortality at discharge (2 TAVR, 1 SAVR, p = 0.584), 30-days (2 TAVR, 1 SAVR, p = 0.584), and 1-year (8 TAVR, 5 SAVR, p = 0.149).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher risk TAVR group, patients in shock undergoing either TAVR or SAVR have similar 30-day mortality. At one year, SAVR patients have a numerically better, though not statistically significant, survival. These findings support the use of TAVR for patients in shock with aortic stenosis.