Department of Cardiology, AOUP Cisanello, University Hospital, Pisa, Italy.
Department of Cardiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Am J Cardiol. 2020 Feb 1;125(3):441-448. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.10.056. Epub 2019 Nov 9.
We sought to analyze outcomes of women receiving balloon-expandable valves (BEV) or self-expanding valves (SEV) in contemporary transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). WIN TAVI (Women's INternational Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) is the first all-female TAVI registry to study the safety and performance of TAVI in women. We compared women treated with BEV (n = 408, 46.9%) versus those treated with SEV (n = 461, 53.1%). The primary efficacy end point was the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) composite of 1-year all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for valve-related symptoms or heart failure or valve-related dysfunction. Women receiving SEV had higher surgical risk scores, higher rate of previous stroke and pulmonary hypertension whereas women receiving BEV were more frequently denied surgical valve replacement due to frailty. BEV patients were less likely to require post-dilation and had significantly lower rates of residual aortic regurgitation grade ≥2 (9.8% vs 4.7%, p = 0.007). At 1 year, the crude incidence and adjusted risk of the primary VARC-2 efficacy end point was similar between groups (17.1% with SEV and 14.3% with BEV, p = 0.25; hazards ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.75). Conversely the crude rate and adjusted risk of new pacemaker implantation was higher with SEV than BEV (15% vs 8.6%, p = 0.001; hazards ratio 1.97, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 3.43). A subanalysis on new generation valves showed no difference in the need for pacemaker implantation between the 2 devices (10.1% vs 8.0%, p = 0.56). In conclusion, in contemporary TAVI, SEV are used more frequently in women with greater co-morbidities. While there were no differences in unadjusted and adjusted risk of 1-year primary efficacy end point between the valve types, there was a greater need for permanent pacemakers after SEV implantation.
我们旨在分析在当代经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)中接受球囊扩张瓣膜(BEV)或自扩张瓣膜(SEV)治疗的女性患者的结局。WIN TAVI(女性国际经导管主动脉瓣植入术)是首个研究 TAVI 治疗女性患者安全性和疗效的全女性 TAVI 注册研究。我们比较了接受 BEV 治疗的女性(n=408,46.9%)与接受 SEV 治疗的女性(n=461,53.1%)。主要疗效终点是 1 年全因死亡、卒、心肌梗死、因瓣膜相关症状或心力衰竭或瓣膜相关功能障碍住院、以及 Valve Academic Research Consortium-2(VARC-2)复合终点。接受 SEV 的女性患者手术风险评分较高,既往卒中发生率和肺动脉高压发生率较高,而接受 BEV 的女性患者因体弱而更频繁地被拒绝行外科瓣膜置换术。BEV 患者较少需要后扩张,且残余主动脉瓣反流≥2 级的发生率显著较低(9.8%比 4.7%,p=0.007)。1 年时,两组间主要 VARC-2 疗效终点的粗发生率和校正风险相似(SEV 组为 17.1%,BEV 组为 14.3%,p=0.25;风险比 1.09,95%置信区间 0.68 至 1.75)。相反,SEV 组新发起搏器植入的粗发生率和校正风险高于 BEV 组(15%比 8.6%,p=0.001;风险比 1.97,95%置信区间 1.13 至 3.43)。对新一代瓣膜的亚组分析显示,两种器械之间起搏器植入的需求无差异(2 级分别为 10.1%和 8.0%,p=0.56)。总之,在当代 TAVI 中,SEV 在合并症更多的女性中更常使用。尽管两种瓣膜类型在未校正和校正 1 年主要疗效终点风险方面无差异,但 SEV 植入后更需要永久性起搏器。