Gada Hemal, Scuffham Paul A, Griffin Brian, Marwick Thomas H
Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011 Sep;4(5):541-8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.111.961839. Epub 2011 Aug 30.
BACKGROUND- Traditional management of severe aortic stenosis (AS) is based on delay in aortic valve replacement (AVR) until the development of symptoms. Surgery for asymptomatic AS has been proposed to reduce the small risk of sudden death before AVR and avoid heart failure (HF) after AVR. Because a trial to compare these options is unlikely, we developed a Markov model to inform the choice between immediate surgery and watchful waiting in asymptomatic AS. METHODS AND RESULTS- We defined health states as preoperative, postoperative, postcomplication, and death. We calculated the implications of watchful waiting, tissue and mechanical AVR-based on risks, transitions, utilities, and cost derived from literature review. Further analyses evaluated situations thought to favor immediate surgery and watchful waiting. Sensitivity analyses were based on the likelihood of preoperative death and HF in follow-up. In the reference case (age, 65 years; post-AVR utility, 0.9; annualized pre-AVR mortality, 1%; and post-AVR HF, 11.3%), the utility of watchful waiting was superior to that of immediate mechanical or tissue AVR (quality-adjusted life-years, 7.4 versus 5.3 versus 5.3, respectively), and the cost was less than immediate surgery. Sensitivity analyses showed immediate surgery was not likely to be more effective regardless of the yearly probability of post-AVR HF in the watchful waiting group (range, 0% to 80%). Immediate surgery was likely to be effective when pre-AVR annual mortality reached 13%. CONCLUSIONS- Immediate surgery in asymptomatic severe AS does not improve outcomes unless risk of sudden death pre-AVR and HF after AVR are higher than currently reported.
背景——重度主动脉瓣狭窄(AS)的传统治疗方法是延迟进行主动脉瓣置换术(AVR),直至出现症状。有人提出对无症状AS进行手术,以降低AVR前猝死的小风险,并避免AVR后发生心力衰竭(HF)。由于不太可能进行一项试验来比较这些选择,我们建立了一个马尔可夫模型,以指导无症状AS患者在即刻手术和密切观察等待之间做出选择。
方法与结果——我们将健康状态定义为术前、术后、并发症后和死亡。我们根据文献综述得出的风险、转变、效用和成本,计算了密切观察等待、基于组织和机械AVR的影响。进一步的分析评估了被认为有利于即刻手术和密切观察等待的情况。敏感性分析基于随访中术前死亡和HF的可能性。在参考案例中(年龄65岁;AVR后效用为0.9;AVR前年化死亡率为1%;AVR后HF为11.3%),密切观察等待的效用优于即刻进行机械或组织AVR(质量调整生命年分别为7.4、5.3和5.3),且成本低于即刻手术。敏感性分析表明,无论密切观察等待组中AVR后HF的年概率如何(范围为0%至80%),即刻手术不太可能更有效。当AVR前年度死亡率达到13%时,即刻手术可能有效。
结论——无症状重度AS患者进行即刻手术并不能改善预后,除非AVR前猝死风险和AVR后HF风险高于目前报告的水平。