The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2021
Aortic valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Fukuhara Shinichi, Nguyen Chan Tran N, Kim Karen M, Yang Bo, Ailawadi Gorav, Patel Himanshu J, Deeb G Michael
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Despite the rapid adoption of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), there are scant data regarding aortic valve reintervention after initial TAVR.
METHODS: Between 2011 and 2019, 1487 patients underwent a TAVR at the University of Michigan. Among these, 24 (1.6%) patients required an aortic valve reintervention. Additionally, 4 patients who received a TAVR at another institution underwent a valve reintervention at our institution. We retrospectively reviewed these 28 patients.
RESULTS: The median age was 72 years, 36% were female and 86% of implanted TAVR devices were self-expandable. The leading indications for reintervention were structural valve degeneration (39%) and paravalvular leak (36%). The cumulative incidence of aortic valve reintervention was 4.6% at 8 years. Most (71%) were deemed unsuitable for repeat TAVR because of the need for concurrent cardiac procedures (50%), unfavorable anatomy (45%), or endocarditis (10%). TAVR valve explant was associated with frequent concurrent procedures, consisting of aortic repair (35%), mitral repair/replacement (35%), tricuspid repair (25%), and coronary artery bypass graft (20%). Seventy-one percent of aortic procedures were unplanned but proved necessary because of severe adhesion of the devices to the contacting tissue. There were 3 (15%) in-hospital mortalities in the TAVR valve explant group, whereas there was no mortality in the repeat TAVR group.
CONCLUSIONS: Repeat TAVR procedure was frequently not feasible because of unfavorable anatomy and/or the need for concurrent cardiac procedures. Careful assessment of TAVR procedure repeatability should be weighed at the initial TAVR workup especially in younger patients who are expected to require a valve reintervention.
METHODS: Between 2011 and 2019, 1487 patients underwent a TAVR at the University of Michigan. Among these, 24 (1.6%) patients required an aortic valve reintervention. Additionally, 4 patients who received a TAVR at another institution underwent a valve reintervention at our institution. We retrospectively reviewed these 28 patients.
RESULTS: The median age was 72 years, 36% were female and 86% of implanted TAVR devices were self-expandable. The leading indications for reintervention were structural valve degeneration (39%) and paravalvular leak (36%). The cumulative incidence of aortic valve reintervention was 4.6% at 8 years. Most (71%) were deemed unsuitable for repeat TAVR because of the need for concurrent cardiac procedures (50%), unfavorable anatomy (45%), or endocarditis (10%). TAVR valve explant was associated with frequent concurrent procedures, consisting of aortic repair (35%), mitral repair/replacement (35%), tricuspid repair (25%), and coronary artery bypass graft (20%). Seventy-one percent of aortic procedures were unplanned but proved necessary because of severe adhesion of the devices to the contacting tissue. There were 3 (15%) in-hospital mortalities in the TAVR valve explant group, whereas there was no mortality in the repeat TAVR group.
CONCLUSIONS: Repeat TAVR procedure was frequently not feasible because of unfavorable anatomy and/or the need for concurrent cardiac procedures. Careful assessment of TAVR procedure repeatability should be weighed at the initial TAVR workup especially in younger patients who are expected to require a valve reintervention.