The Impact of Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices on Characteristics and Outcomes of Stroke Complicating TAVR.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Levi Amos, Linder Matthias, Seiffert Moritz, Witberg Guy, Pilgrim Thomas, Tomii Daijiro, Barkan Yeela Tamlor, Van Mieghem Nicolas M, Adrichem Rik, Codner Pablo, Hildick-Smith David, Arunothayaraj Sandeep, Perl Leor, Finkelstein Ariel, Loewenstein Itamar, De Backer Ole, Barnea Rani, Tarantini Giuseppe, Fovino Luca Nai, Vaknin-Assa Hana, Mylotte Darren, Wagener Max, Webb John G, Akodad Mariama, Colombo Antonio, Mangieri Antonio, Latib Azeem, Kargoli Faraj, Giannini Francesco, Ielasi Alfonso, Søndergaard Lars, Aviram Itay, Lerman Tsahi T, Kheifets Mark, Auriel Eitan, Kornowski Ran, ASTRO-TAVI Study Group
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: In a cohort of patients with AISCT, we aimed to compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients who have had unprotected TAVR (CEPD-) vs CEPD-protected TAVR (CEPD+).
METHODS: Data were derived from an international multicenter registry focusing on AISCT. We included all patients who experienced ischemic stroke within 72 hours of TAVR. Stroke severity was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Primary outcomes were neurologic disability status according to the modified Rankin Score at 30 days, and 6-month all-cause death. Propensity score matched analysis was used to control for differences between groups.
RESULTS: In 18,725 TAVR procedures, 416 AISCT (2.2%) within 72 hours were documented, of which 376 were in the CEPD- TAVR group and 40 in the CEPD+ TAVR group. Although the middle cerebral artery stroke rate was similar in both groups (29.7% CEPD- vs 33.3% CEPD+; P = 0.71), AISCT in the CEPD+ group was characterized by a lower rate of internal carotid artery occlusion (0% vs 4.7%) and higher rate of vertebrobasilar system strokes (15.4% vs 5.7%; P = 0.04). AISCT was severe (NIHSS ≥15) in 21.6% CEPD- and 23.3% CEPD+ AISCT (P = 0.20). Disabling stroke rates (modified Rankin Score >1 at 30 days) were 47.3% vs 42.5% (P = 0.62), and 6-month mortality was 31.3% vs 23.3% (P = 0.61), in the CEPD- and CEPD+ groups, respectively. In the propensity score matched cohort, disabling stroke rates were 56.5% vs 41.6% (P = 0.16), and 6-month mortality was 33% vs 19.5% (P = 0.35), in the CEPD- and CEPD+ groups, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of patients with AISCT, the use of CEPD had little effect on stroke distribution, severity, and outcomes.