Section of Interventional Cardiology, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC.
Section of Interventional Cardiology, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC; Division of Intramural Research, Cardiovascular Branch, National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Am J Cardiol. 2018 Nov 1;122(9):1536-1540. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.07.026. Epub 2018 Aug 3.
There is scarcity of evidence regarding antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in patients with prosthetic valves undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Our goal was to compare clinical outcomes between patients with mechanical or bioprosthetic valves undergoing PCI. The study population comprised patients with either a bioprosthetic or mechanical heart valve in the aortic and/or mitral position undergoing PCI between January 2003 and July 2017. Demographics, admission, and discharge medications as well as procedural details were documented. Outcomes were postprocedural bleeding, length of stay, and in-hospital deaths. Of 211 patients, we identified 119 and 92 patients with a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve, respectively. Mean age was 75 ± 9 years and 66 ± 12 years in bioprosthetic and mechanical valve patients, respectively. Bare-metal stents were used in 18.2% and 30.1% of bioprosthetic and mechanical valve patients, respectively. Major bleeding was documented in 0.8% and 6.5% of bioprosthetic and mechanical valve patients, respectively (p = 0.04). Use of triple therapy (aspirin AND clopidogrel AND oral vitamin K antagonist) was significantly lower in bioprosthetic valve patients compared with mechanical valve patients (12% vs 68%, p <0.001). Our study shows variation in periprocedural anticoagulation and/or antiplatelet choice exists in this population. Patients with mechanical valves experienced higher rates of major bleeding compared with patients with bioprosthetic valves, which could be due to concomitant anticoagulation and dual antiplatelet therapy.
在接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗 (PCI) 的人工心脏瓣膜患者中,有关抗血小板和抗凝治疗的证据有限。我们的目标是比较接受 PCI 的机械或生物人工瓣膜患者的临床结局。研究人群包括 2003 年 1 月至 2017 年 7 月期间在主动脉和/或二尖瓣位置接受 PCI 的机械或生物人工心脏瓣膜患者。记录了人口统计学、入院和出院时的药物以及手术细节。结局为术后出血、住院时间和院内死亡。在 211 例患者中,我们分别确定了 119 例和 92 例生物人工瓣膜和机械瓣膜患者。生物人工瓣膜和机械瓣膜患者的平均年龄分别为 75 ± 9 岁和 66 ± 12 岁。裸金属支架分别在生物人工瓣膜和机械瓣膜患者中的使用率为 18.2%和 30.1%。生物人工瓣膜和机械瓣膜患者的主要出血发生率分别为 0.8%和 6.5%(p=0.04)。与机械瓣膜患者相比,生物人工瓣膜患者三联治疗(阿司匹林和氯吡格雷和口服维生素 K 拮抗剂)的使用率明显较低(12%比 68%,p<0.001)。我们的研究表明,在该人群中存在围手术期抗凝和/或抗血小板选择的差异。与生物人工瓣膜患者相比,机械瓣膜患者发生主要出血的比率更高,这可能是由于同时抗凝和双联抗血小板治疗。