Suppr超能文献

经心尖与经股动脉经导管主动脉瓣置入术后的临床结果:不断发展的经验

Clinical Outcomes After Transapical and Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Insertion: An Evolving Experience.

作者信息

Murashita Takashi, Greason Kevin L, Pochettino Alberto, Sandhu Gurpreet S, Nkomo Vuyisile T, Bresnahan John F, Reeder Guy S, Holmes David R, Rihal Charanjit S, Mathew Verghese

机构信息

Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

出版信息

Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Jul;102(1):56-61. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.11.073. Epub 2016 Apr 23.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Prior publications note increased adverse events after transapical compared with transfemoral access transcatheter aortic valve insertion (TAVI). We reviewed our TAVI experience to understand the differences in baseline patient characteristics and outcomes associated with the two access methods.

METHODS

The records were reviewed of 567 patients who underwent transfemoral (n = 351, 61.9%) and transapical (n = 216, 38.1%) TAVI from November 2008 through July 2015.

RESULTS

Compared with patients who underwent transfemoral access, the patients who underwent transapical access were older (82.0 ± 7.5 versus 79.6 ± 9.7 years; p = 0.006), had more peripheral vascular disease (78.2% versus 54.7%; p < 0.001), more previous coronary artery bypass graft operations (50.9% versus 32.5%; p < 0.001), and higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality (9.4% ± 5.4% versus 8.8% ± 6.5%; p = 0.032). In-hospital and 30-day mortality rates, however, were similar between the two groups (transapical, n = 7, 3.2%; transfemoral, n = 13, 3.7%; p = 0.772). Follow-up echocardiography in 547 (100.0%) surviving patients at a median of 182 days (interquartile range, 35 to 420) demonstrated less paravalvular regurgitation grade of moderate or greater in patients who underwent transapical access (transapical, n = 6, 2.9%; transfemoral, n = 35, 10.4%; p = 0.001) but similar ejection fraction in the two groups (transapical, 55.4% ± 12.2%; transfemoral, 55.9% ± 13.0%; p = 0.419). Mortality rates at 1 year (transapical, 19.2% ± 3.0%; transfemoral,14.7% ± 3.2%) and 4 years (transapical, 47.4% ± 6.4%; transfemoral, 42.7% ± 4.9%) were also similar between the two groups (p = 0.342).

CONCLUSIONS

Transapical and transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve insertions result in similar operative and longer term mortality rates, despite differences in baseline patient risk. The findings support the concept that access does not influence treatment-related mortality rates.

摘要

背景

既往发表的文献指出,经心尖途径与经股动脉途径的经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)相比,不良事件增加。我们回顾了我们的TAVI经验,以了解与这两种入路方法相关的基线患者特征和结局的差异。

方法

回顾了2008年11月至2015年7月期间接受经股动脉(n = 351,61.9%)和经心尖(n = 216,38.1%)TAVI的567例患者的记录。

结果

与经股动脉入路的患者相比,经心尖入路的患者年龄更大(82.0±7.5岁对79.6±9.7岁;p = 0.006),外周血管疾病更多(78.2%对54.7%;p<0.001),既往冠状动脉搭桥手术更多(50.9%对32.5%;p<0.001),胸外科医师协会预测的死亡风险更高(9.4%±5.4%对8.8%±6.5%;p = 0.032)。然而,两组的住院死亡率和30天死亡率相似(经心尖入路,n = 7,3.2%;经股动脉入路,n = 13,3.7%;p = 0.772)。547例(100.0%)存活患者在中位时间182天(四分位间距,35至420天)进行的随访超声心动图显示,经心尖入路的患者中度或更严重的瓣周反流分级较少(经心尖入路,n = 6,2.9%;经股动脉入路,n = 35,10.4%;p = 0.001),但两组的射血分数相似(经心尖入路,55.4%±12.2%;经股动脉入路,55.9%±13.0%;p = 0.419)。两组1年(经心尖入路,19.2%±3.0%;经股动脉入路,14.7%±3.2%)和4年(经心尖入路,47.4%±6.4%;经股动脉入路,42.7%±4.9%)的死亡率也相似(p = 0.342)。

结论

尽管基线患者风险存在差异,但经心尖和经股动脉经导管主动脉瓣植入术的手术死亡率和长期死亡率相似。这些发现支持入路不影响治疗相关死亡率的概念。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验