International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2022
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis and cardiac amyloidosis.
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.
Khawaja Tasveer, Jaswaney Rahul, Arora Shilpkumar, Jain Akhil, Arora Nirav, Augusto Palma Dallan Luis, Yoon Sunghan, Najeeb Osman Mohammed, Filby Steven J, Attizzani Guilherme F
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Though the co-prevalence of aortic stenosis (AS) and cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is increasingly recognized, the role of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with CA remains unclear.
METHODS: The National Readmission Dataset (2016-18) and ICD-10 codes were used to identify those with CA and AS, in conjunction with TAVR status. The primary outcome was a composite of heart failure (HF) readmissions and all-cause mortality. All outcomes were followed up to 1-year with a median follow up time 172-days. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate cox-proportional hazard regression were used for time-to-event analysis.
RESULTS: Of 1,127 CA patients, 92 (8.2%) had undergone TAVR. Patients with CA who received TAVR were younger and more commonly had coronary artery disease (67.3% vs 44.2%). Teaching (93.6% vs 81.1%) and large hospitals (77.7% vs 59.3%) performed more TAVRs. In multivariate analysis, TAVR was associated with an improved primary outcome (8.9% vs 24.4%, HR:0.32; 95% CI 0.14-0.71, p = 0.007) and with reduced HF readmissions (3.8% vs 19.4%, HR:0.22; 95% CI 0.07-0.68, p = 0.008). All-cause mortality was numerically lower in TAVR patients with CA but did not reach statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: CA patients who receive TAVR are younger, and the procedure is more commonly performed at large, teaching hospitals. TAVR was associated with a lower primary composite outcome of HF readmissions and all-cause mortality.
METHODS: The National Readmission Dataset (2016-18) and ICD-10 codes were used to identify those with CA and AS, in conjunction with TAVR status. The primary outcome was a composite of heart failure (HF) readmissions and all-cause mortality. All outcomes were followed up to 1-year with a median follow up time 172-days. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate cox-proportional hazard regression were used for time-to-event analysis.
RESULTS: Of 1,127 CA patients, 92 (8.2%) had undergone TAVR. Patients with CA who received TAVR were younger and more commonly had coronary artery disease (67.3% vs 44.2%). Teaching (93.6% vs 81.1%) and large hospitals (77.7% vs 59.3%) performed more TAVRs. In multivariate analysis, TAVR was associated with an improved primary outcome (8.9% vs 24.4%, HR:0.32; 95% CI 0.14-0.71, p = 0.007) and with reduced HF readmissions (3.8% vs 19.4%, HR:0.22; 95% CI 0.07-0.68, p = 0.008). All-cause mortality was numerically lower in TAVR patients with CA but did not reach statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: CA patients who receive TAVR are younger, and the procedure is more commonly performed at large, teaching hospitals. TAVR was associated with a lower primary composite outcome of HF readmissions and all-cause mortality.