Division of Cardiac Surgery, University of Verona Medical School, Verona, Italy.
National Centre for Epidemiology, Surveillance and Health Promotion, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014 Feb;147(2):568-75. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.10.006. Epub 2013 Nov 19.
Despite demonstration of the superior outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus optimal medical therapy for severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, studies comparing TAVI and surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in this high-risk group have been lacking.
We performed propensity matching for age, gender, baseline comorbidities, previous interventions, priority at hospital admission, frailty score, New York Heart Association class, EuroSCORE, and associated cardiac diseases. Next, the 30-day mortality and procedure-related morbidity of 162 patients (81 TAVI vs 81 AVR) with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction ≤ 35%) were analyzed at the Italian National Institute of Health.
The 30-day mortality was comparable (P = .37) between the 2 groups. The incidence of periprocedural acute myocardial infarction (P = .55), low output state (P = .27), stroke (P = .36), and renal dysfunction (peak creatinine level, P = .57) was also similar between the 2 groups. TAVI resulted in significantly greater postprocedural permanent pacemaker implantation (P = .01) and AVR in more periprocedural transfusions (P < .01) despite a similar transfusion rate per patient (2.8 ± 3.7 for TAVI vs 4.4 ± 3.8 for AVR; P = .08). The postprocedural intensive care unit stay (median, 2 days after TAVI vs 3 days after AVR; P = .34), intermediate care unit stay (median, 0 days after both TAVI and AVR; P = .94), and hospitalization (median, 11 days after TAVI vs 14 days after AVR; P = .51) were comparable.
In patients with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, both TAVI and AVR are valid treatment options, with comparable hospital mortality and periprocedural morbidity. Comparisons of the mid- to long-term outcomes are mandatory.
尽管经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)在严重左心室收缩功能障碍患者中的治疗效果优于最佳药物治疗,但在这一高危人群中,比较 TAVI 和外科主动脉瓣置换术(AVR)的研究仍较为缺乏。
我们根据年龄、性别、基线合并症、既往干预措施、入院时的优先级、脆弱评分、纽约心脏协会(NYHA)心功能分级、欧洲心脏手术风险评估系统(EuroSCORE)和相关心脏病,进行了倾向评分匹配。然后,我们对意大利国家卫生研究所的 162 例严重左心室收缩功能障碍(射血分数≤35%)患者(81 例 TAVI 与 81 例 AVR)的 30 天死亡率和与手术相关的发病率进行了分析。
两组患者的 30 天死亡率相当(P =.37)。两组之间围手术期急性心肌梗死(P =.55)、低心排血量状态(P =.27)、卒中(P =.36)和肾功能障碍(峰值肌酐水平,P =.57)的发生率也相似。尽管 TAVI 术后需要永久性心脏起搏器植入的比例明显更高(P =.01),而 AVR 术后的输血需求更多(P <.01),但每例患者的输血率相似(TAVI 为 2.8 ± 3.7,AVR 为 4.4 ± 3.8;P =.08)。TAVI 术后重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间(中位数为 2 天)与 AVR 术后(中位数为 3 天)相当(P =.34),TAVI 和 AVR 术后均无需入住中间护理病房(P =.94),TAVI 术后的住院时间(中位数为 11 天)与 AVR 术后(中位数为 14 天)相当(P =.51)。
在严重左心室收缩功能障碍患者中,TAVI 和 AVR 都是有效的治疗选择,其院内死亡率和围手术期发病率相当。有必要对两者的中期至长期结果进行比较。