Suppr超能文献

在4个解剖位置使用6种不同装置的经导管瓣中瓣治疗:临床结果和技术考量

Transcatheter valve-in-valve therapy using 6 different devices in 4 anatomic positions: Clinical outcomes and technical considerations.

作者信息

Conradi Lenard, Silaschi Miriam, Seiffert Moritz, Lubos Edith, Blankenberg Stefan, Reichenspurner Hermann, Schaefer Ulrich, Treede Hendrik

机构信息

Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Heart Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Heart Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

出版信息

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015 Dec;150(6):1557-65, 1567.e1-3; discussion 1565-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.08.065. Epub 2015 Aug 28.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (ViV) is emerging as a novel treatment option for patients with deteriorated bioprostheses. We report our cumulative experience using 6 types of transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in all anatomic positions.

METHODS

Seventy-five consecutive patients (74.1 ± 12.9 years, 50.7% male (38/75), logEuroSCORE I 26.2% ± 17.8%, STS-PROM 8.8% ± 7.4%) receiving ViV procedures from 2008 to 2014 were included for analysis. Data were prospectively gathered and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

ViV was performed in aortic (72.0%, 54/75), mitral (22.7%, 17/75), tricuspid (2.7%, 2/75), and pulmonary (2.7%, 2/75) positions. THVs used were Edwards SAPIEN (XT)/SAPIEN3 (52.0%, 39/75), Medtronic Core Valve/Core Valve Evolut(R) (34.7%, 26/75), St Jude Portico (4.0%, 3/75), Boston Scientific Lotus (4.0%, 3/75), Jena Valve (2.7%, 2/75), and Medtronic Engager (2.7%, 2/75). Interval from index procedure to ViV was 9.3 ± 4.9 years. Access was transapical in 53.3% (40/75), transfemoral (transarterial or transvenous) in 42.7% (32/75), transaortic in 2.7% (2/75), and transjugular in 1.3% (1/75). ViV was successful in 97.3% (73/75) with 2 patients requiring sequential THV implantation for initial malpositioning. Overall immediate procedural (≤72 hours) and all-cause 30-day mortality were 2.7% (2/75) and 8.0% (6/75). Corresponding values after aortic ViV were 1.9% (1/54) and 5.6% (3/54). No periprocedural strokes or cases of coronary obstruction occurred. Paravalvular leakage was less than or equal to mild in all cases. After aortic ViV, gradients were max/mean 34.1 ± 14.2/20.1 ± 7.1 mm Hg and effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.5 ± 1.4 cm(2). Corresponding values after mitral ViV were gradients max/mean 14.2 ± 8.2/4.7 ± 3.1 mm Hg and EOA 2.4 ± 0.9 cm(2).

CONCLUSIONS

ViV can be performed in all anatomic positions with acceptable hemodynamic and clinical outcome in high-risk patients. Increasing importance of ViV can be anticipated considering growing use of surgical bioprostheses.

摘要

目的

经导管瓣中瓣植入术(ViV)正逐渐成为生物假体功能恶化患者的一种新型治疗选择。我们报告了在所有解剖位置使用6种经导管心脏瓣膜(THV)的累积经验。

方法

纳入2008年至2014年接受ViV手术的75例连续患者(年龄74.1±12.9岁,男性占50.7%(38/75),欧洲心脏手术风险评估系统I评分26.2%±17.8%,胸外科医师协会预测死亡率8.8%±7.4%)进行分析。数据前瞻性收集并回顾性分析。

结果

ViV手术在主动脉瓣位置进行了72.0%(54/75),二尖瓣位置22.7%(17/75),三尖瓣位置2.7%(2/75),肺动脉瓣位置2.7%(2/75)。使用的THV包括爱德华兹SAPIEN(XT)/SAPIEN3(52.0%,39/75),美敦力Core Valve/Core Valve Evolut(R)(34.7%,26/75),圣犹达Portico(4.0%,3/75),波士顿科学Lotus(4.0%,3/75),耶拿瓣膜(2.7%,2/75),和美敦力Engager(2.7%,2/75)。首次手术至ViV的间隔时间为9.3±4.9年。53.3%(40/75)的患者采用经心尖入路,42.7%(32/75)采用经股动脉(经动脉或经静脉)入路,2.7%(2/75)采用经主动脉入路,1.3%(1/75)采用经颈静脉入路。ViV手术成功率为97.3%(73/75),2例患者因初始位置不佳需要序贯THV植入。总体即时手术(≤72小时)和全因30天死亡率分别为2.7%(2/75)和8.0%(6/75)。主动脉瓣ViV后的相应值分别为1.9%(1/54)和5.6%(3/54)。围手术期未发生中风或冠状动脉阻塞病例。所有病例的瓣周漏均小于或等于轻度。主动脉瓣ViV后,最大/平均梯度为34.1±14.2/20.1±7.1 mmHg,有效瓣口面积(EOA)为1.5±1.4 cm²。二尖瓣ViV后的相应值为最大/平均梯度14.2±8.2/4.7±3.1 mmHg,EOA为2.4±0.9 cm²。

结论

ViV可在所有解剖位置进行,高危患者的血流动力学和临床结果可接受。考虑到外科生物假体的使用增加,ViV的重要性可能会不断提高。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验