Division of Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Division of Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Jun 25;11(12):1131-1138. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.03.011.
There are minimal data regarding clinical outcomes and echocardiographic findings after transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve replacement (TMVR) compared with redo surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR).
TMVR therapy has emerged as therapy for a degenerated bioprosthetic valve failure.
The authors retrospectively identified patients with degenerated mitral bioprostheses who underwent redo SMVR or TMVR at 3 U.S. institutions. The authors compared clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients who had TMVR with those of patients who underwent redo SMVR.
Sixty-two patients underwent TMVR and 59 patients underwent SMVR during the study period. Mean age and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) scores were significantly higher in patients with TMVR than in those with SMVR (age 74.9 ± 9.4 years vs. 63.7 ± 14.9 years; p < 0.001; STS PROM 12.7 ± 8.0% vs. 8.7 ± 10.1%; p < 0.0001). Total procedure time, intensive care unit hours, and post-procedure length of stay were all significantly shorter in the TMVR group. There was no difference in mortality at 1 year between the 2 groups (TMVR 11.3% vs. SMVR 11.9%; p = 0.92). Mean mitral valve pressure gradient and the grade of mitral regurgitation (MR) were similar between the TMVR group and the SMVR group (mitral valve pressure gradient 7.1 ± 2.5 mm Hg vs. 6.5 ± 2.5 mm Hg; p = 0.42; MR [≥moderate] 3.8% vs. 5.6%; p = 1.00) at 30 days. At 1 year, the mitral valve pressure gradient was higher in the TMVR group (TMVR 7.2 ± 2.7 vs. SMVR 5.5 ± 1.8; p = 0.01), although there was no difference in the grade of MR.
Despite the higher STS PROM in TMVR patients, there was no difference in 1-year mortality between the TMVR and SMVR groups. Echocardiographic findings after TMVR were similar to SMVR at 30 days. There was a statistically significant difference in mitral gradient at 1 year, though this is likely not clinically important. TMVR may be an alternative to SMVR in patients with previous mitral bioprosthetic valves.
经导管二尖瓣瓣中瓣置换术(TMVR)与再次二尖瓣外科置换术(SMVR)相比,其临床结果和超声心动图结果的数据较少。
TMVR 治疗已成为治疗退行性生物瓣失败的一种方法。
作者回顾性地确定了在美国 3 家机构接受再次 SMVR 或 TMVR 的退行性二尖瓣生物瓣患者。作者比较了接受 TMVR 患者的临床和超声心动图结果与接受再次 SMVR 患者的结果。
在研究期间,62 例患者接受 TMVR,59 例患者接受 SMVR。TMVR 组患者的平均年龄和胸外科医生协会预测死亡率(STS PROM)评分明显高于 SMVR 组(年龄 74.9 ± 9.4 岁 vs. 63.7 ± 14.9 岁;p<0.001;STS PROM 12.7 ± 8.0% vs. 8.7 ± 10.1%;p<0.0001)。TMVR 组的总手术时间、重症监护病房时间和术后住院时间均明显缩短。两组患者在 1 年时的死亡率无差异(TMVR 11.3% vs. SMVR 11.9%;p=0.92)。TMVR 组与 SMVR 组在 30 天时的二尖瓣瓣口压力梯度和二尖瓣反流(MR)分级相似(二尖瓣瓣口压力梯度 7.1 ± 2.5mmHg vs. 6.5 ± 2.5mmHg;p=0.42;MR[≥中度]3.8% vs. 5.6%;p=1.00)。在 1 年时,TMVR 组的二尖瓣瓣口压力梯度较高(TMVR 7.2 ± 2.7 vs. SMVR 5.5 ± 1.8;p=0.01),尽管 MR 分级没有差异。
尽管 TMVR 患者的 STS PROM 较高,但 TMVR 组与 SMVR 组在 1 年死亡率方面无差异。TMVR 后的超声心动图结果在 30 天时与 SMVR 相似。1 年时二尖瓣梯度有统计学意义上的差异,但这可能在临床上并不重要。TMVR 可能是既往二尖瓣生物瓣患者再次行 SMVR 的替代方法。