Clavel Marie-Annick, Webb John G, Pibarot Philippe, Altwegg Lukas, Dumont Eric, Thompson Chris, De Larochellière Robert, Doyle Daniel, Masson Jean-Bernard, Bergeron Sebastien, Bertrand Olivier F, Rodés-Cabau Josep
Quebec Heart & Lung Institute/Laval Hospital, Laval University, Québec City, Québec, Canada.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 May 19;53(20):1883-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.01.060.
This study was undertaken to compare the hemodynamic performance of a percutaneous bioprosthesis to that of surgically implanted (stented and stentless) bioprostheses for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis.
Fifty patients who underwent percutaneous aortic valve implantation (PAVI) with the Cribier-Edwards or Edwards SAPIEN bioprosthetic valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Inc., Irvine, California) were matched 1:1 for sex, aortic annulus diameter, left ventricular ejection fraction, body surface area, and body mass index, with 2 groups of 50 patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a stented valve (Edwards Perimount Magna [SAVR-ST group]), or a stentless valve (Medtronic Freestyle, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota [SAVR-SL group]). Doppler echocardiographic data were prospectively obtained before the intervention, at discharge, and at 6- to 12-month follow-up.
Mean transprosthetic gradient at discharge was lower (p < 0.001) in the PAVI group (10 +/- 4 mm Hg) compared with the SAVR-ST (13 +/- 5 mm Hg) and SAVR-SL (14 +/- 6 mm Hg) groups. Aortic regurgitation (AR) occurred more frequently in the PAVI group (mild: 42%, moderate: 8%) compared with the SAVR-ST (mild: 10%, moderate: 0%) and SAVR-SL (mild: 12%, moderate: 0%) groups (p < 0.0001). At follow-up, the mean gradient in the PAVI group remained lower (p < 0.001) than that of the SAVR-ST group, but was similar to that of the SAVR-SL group. The incidence of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was significantly lower (p = 0.007) in the PAVI group (6%) compared with the SAVR-ST (28%) and SAVR-SL (20%) groups. However, the incidence of AR remained higher (p < 0.0001) in the PAVI group compared with the 2 other groups.
PAVI provided superior hemodynamic performance compared with the surgical bioprostheses in terms of transprosthetic gradient and prevention of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch, but was associated with a higher incidence of AR.
本研究旨在比较经皮生物瓣膜与外科植入(带支架和无支架)生物瓣膜治疗严重主动脉瓣狭窄的血流动力学表现。
50例接受Cribier-Edwards或Edwards SAPIEN生物瓣膜(Edwards Lifesciences公司,加利福尼亚州欧文市)经皮主动脉瓣植入术(PAVI)的患者,按照性别、主动脉瓣环直径、左心室射血分数、体表面积和体重指数进行1:1匹配,与两组各50例接受带支架瓣膜(Edwards Perimount Magna [SAVR-ST组])或无支架瓣膜(Medtronic Freestyle,美敦力公司,明尼阿波利斯,明尼苏达州 [SAVR-SL组])外科主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)的患者进行比较。干预前、出院时以及6至12个月随访时前瞻性获取多普勒超声心动图数据。
与SAVR-ST组(13±5 mmHg)和SAVR-SL组(14±6 mmHg)相比,PAVI组出院时的平均跨瓣压差较低(p<0.001)(10±4 mmHg)。与SAVR-ST组(轻度:10%,中度:0%)和SAVR-SL组(轻度:12%,中度:0%)相比,PAVI组主动脉瓣反流(AR)发生率更高(轻度:42%,中度:8%)(p<0.0001)。随访时,PAVI组的平均压差仍低于SAVR-ST组(p<0.001),但与SAVR-SL组相似。与SAVR-ST组(28%)和SAVR-SL组(20%)相比,PAVI组严重人工瓣膜-患者不匹配的发生率显著更低(p = 0.007)(6%)。然而,与其他两组相比,PAVI组AR的发生率仍然更高(p<0.0001)。
在跨瓣压差和预防严重人工瓣膜-患者不匹配方面,PAVI与外科生物瓣膜相比具有更好的血流动力学表现,但AR发生率更高。