JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2012
Impact of paravalvular leakage on outcome in patients after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
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.
Vasa-Nicotera Mariuca, Sinning Jan-Malte, Chin Derek, Lim Tiong Keng, Spyt Tomasz, Jilaihawi Hasan, Grube Eberhard, Werner Nikos, Nickenig Georg, Kovac Jan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the aortic regurgitation (AR) index as a new hemodynamic parameter in an independent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) cohort and validate its application.
BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence associates more-than-mild periprosthetic aortic regurgitation (periAR) with increased mortality and morbidity; therefore precise evaluation of periAR after TAVI is essential. The AR index has been proposed recently as a simple and reproducible indicator for the severity of periAR and predictor of associated mortality.
METHODS: The severity of periAR was evaluated by echocardiography, angiography, and periprocedural measurement of the dimensionless AR index = ([diastolic blood pressure - left ventricular end-diastolic pressure]/systolic blood pressure) × 100. A cutoff value of 25 was used to identify patients at risk.
RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two patients underwent TAVI by use of either the Medtronic CoreValve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) (79.5%) or the Edwards-SAPIEN bioprosthesis (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) (20.5%). The AR index decreased stepwise from 29.4 ± 6.3 in patients without periAR (n = 26) to 28.0 ± 8.5 with mild periAR (n = 76), 19.6 ± 7.6 with moderate periAR (n = 18), and 7.6 ± 2.6 with severe periAR (n = 2) (p < 0.001). Patients with AR index <25 had a significantly increased 1-year mortality rate compared with patients with AR index ≥ 25 (42.3% vs. 14.3%; p < 0.001). Even in patients with none/mild periAR, the 1-year mortality risk could be further stratified by an AR index <25 (31.3% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: The validity of the AR index could be confirmed in this independent TAVI cohort and provided prognostic information that was complementary to the severity of AR.
BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence associates more-than-mild periprosthetic aortic regurgitation (periAR) with increased mortality and morbidity; therefore precise evaluation of periAR after TAVI is essential. The AR index has been proposed recently as a simple and reproducible indicator for the severity of periAR and predictor of associated mortality.
METHODS: The severity of periAR was evaluated by echocardiography, angiography, and periprocedural measurement of the dimensionless AR index = ([diastolic blood pressure - left ventricular end-diastolic pressure]/systolic blood pressure) × 100. A cutoff value of 25 was used to identify patients at risk.
RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two patients underwent TAVI by use of either the Medtronic CoreValve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) (79.5%) or the Edwards-SAPIEN bioprosthesis (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) (20.5%). The AR index decreased stepwise from 29.4 ± 6.3 in patients without periAR (n = 26) to 28.0 ± 8.5 with mild periAR (n = 76), 19.6 ± 7.6 with moderate periAR (n = 18), and 7.6 ± 2.6 with severe periAR (n = 2) (p < 0.001). Patients with AR index <25 had a significantly increased 1-year mortality rate compared with patients with AR index ≥ 25 (42.3% vs. 14.3%; p < 0.001). Even in patients with none/mild periAR, the 1-year mortality risk could be further stratified by an AR index <25 (31.3% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: The validity of the AR index could be confirmed in this independent TAVI cohort and provided prognostic information that was complementary to the severity of AR.