Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2021
Incidence, treatment, and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction following transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement.
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.
Isogai Toshiaki, Saad Anas M, Ahuja Keerat Rai, Shekhar Shashank, Abdelfattah Omar M, Gad Mohamed M, Svensson Lars G, Krishnaswamy Amar, Reed Grant W, Puri Rishi, Tuzcu E Murat, Ellis Stephen G, Kapadia Samir R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the incidence, treatment, and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) following transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR or SAVR).
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease is common in patients who undergo aortic valve replacement. However, little is known about differences in clinical features of post-TAVR or post-SAVR AMI.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified post-TAVR or post-SAVR (including isolated and complex SAVR) patients admitted with AMI using the Nationwide Readmissions Database 2012-2017. Incidence, invasive strategy (coronary angiography or revascularization), and in-hospital outcomes were compared between post-TAVR and post-SAVR AMIs.
RESULTS: The incidence of 180-day AMI was higher post-TAVR than post-SAVR (1.59% vs. 0.72%; p < 0.001). Post-TAVR AMI patients (n = 1315), compared with post-SAVR AMI patients (n = 1344), were older, had more comorbidities and more frequent non-ST-elevation AMI (NSTEMI: 86.6% vs. 78.0%; p < 0.001). After propensity-score matching, there was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between post-TAVR and post-SAVR AMIs (14.7% vs. 16.1%; p = 0.531), but the mortality was high in both groups, particularly in ST-elevation AMI (STEMI: 38.8% vs. 29.2%; p = 0.153). Invasive strategy was used less frequently for post-TAVR AMI than post-SAVR AMI (25.6% vs. 38.3%; p < 0.001). Invasive strategy was associated with lower mortality in both post-TAVR (adjusted odds ratio = 0.40; 95% confidence interval = [0.24-0.66]) and post-SAVR groups (0.60 [0.41-0.88]).
CONCLUSIONS: AMI, albeit uncommon, was more frequent post-TAVR than post-SAVR. Patients commonly presented with NSTEMI, but the mortality of STEMI was markedly high. Further studies are needed to understand why a substantial percentage of patients do not receive invasive coronary treatment, particularly after TAVR, despite seemingly better outcomes with invasive strategy.
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease is common in patients who undergo aortic valve replacement. However, little is known about differences in clinical features of post-TAVR or post-SAVR AMI.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified post-TAVR or post-SAVR (including isolated and complex SAVR) patients admitted with AMI using the Nationwide Readmissions Database 2012-2017. Incidence, invasive strategy (coronary angiography or revascularization), and in-hospital outcomes were compared between post-TAVR and post-SAVR AMIs.
RESULTS: The incidence of 180-day AMI was higher post-TAVR than post-SAVR (1.59% vs. 0.72%; p < 0.001). Post-TAVR AMI patients (n = 1315), compared with post-SAVR AMI patients (n = 1344), were older, had more comorbidities and more frequent non-ST-elevation AMI (NSTEMI: 86.6% vs. 78.0%; p < 0.001). After propensity-score matching, there was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between post-TAVR and post-SAVR AMIs (14.7% vs. 16.1%; p = 0.531), but the mortality was high in both groups, particularly in ST-elevation AMI (STEMI: 38.8% vs. 29.2%; p = 0.153). Invasive strategy was used less frequently for post-TAVR AMI than post-SAVR AMI (25.6% vs. 38.3%; p < 0.001). Invasive strategy was associated with lower mortality in both post-TAVR (adjusted odds ratio = 0.40; 95% confidence interval = [0.24-0.66]) and post-SAVR groups (0.60 [0.41-0.88]).
CONCLUSIONS: AMI, albeit uncommon, was more frequent post-TAVR than post-SAVR. Patients commonly presented with NSTEMI, but the mortality of STEMI was markedly high. Further studies are needed to understand why a substantial percentage of patients do not receive invasive coronary treatment, particularly after TAVR, despite seemingly better outcomes with invasive strategy.