Department of Medicine, Westchester Medical Center and New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York.
Department of Cardiology, Westchester Medical Center and New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York.
Am J Cardiol. 2020 Apr 1;125(7):1083-1087. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.12.050. Epub 2020 Jan 9.
Transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) has shown comparable outcomes to surgical mitral valve replacement or repair (SMVR) in patients who are at a higher risk of surgical complications and therefore are not amenable to surgery. Elderly patients are considered poor surgical candidates due to their advanced age, and presence of comorbidities. A sub-analysis of EVEREST II (Endovascular Valve Edge-to-Edge Repair Study) trial identified patients of >70 years of age appear to have a similar risk-benefit profile for either approach of surgery or transcatheter. This finding does have some caveats considering the trial included surgical cohort with both repair and replacement. Utilizing the National Inpatient Sample, we identified a surgical cohort of ≥80 years of age that underwent mitral valve repair and used propensity matching to compare it with a similar cohort that underwent TMVR. In a well-balanced cohort, TMVR was associated with significantly lower in-patient mortality (0.7% vs 3.1%). TMVR was also associated with significantly decreased in-hospital complications such as acute kidney injury, cardiogenic shock, postoperative hemorrhage, transfusion, permanent pacemaker, and respiratory and vascular complications. Owing to this, the duration of hospital stay is approximately 6 days less with TMVR. Trend analysis has shown a paradigm shift in these elderly patients with 85% of all repairs in 2012 were performed surgically, whereas in 2016 almost 94% of all the repairs being performed via a transcatheter approach. In conclusion, in patients ≥80 years of age, the surgical MVR had 4-fold higher mortality compared to TMVR with higher cardiac, vascular, hemorrhagic and respiratory complications. Despite the limitations of being observational in nature, this data strongly supports the preferential use of the transcatheter approach for mitral valve repair in patients ≥80 years of age.
经导管二尖瓣修复术(TMVR)在手术风险较高且不适合手术的患者中,与外科二尖瓣置换或修复术(SMVR)具有可比的结果。老年患者由于年龄较大且存在合并症,被认为是手术的不良候选者。 EVEREST II (血管内瓣缘对缘修复研究)试验的一项亚分析确定, >70 岁的患者在手术或经导管治疗方面似乎具有相似的风险获益特征。考虑到该试验包括修复和置换的外科队列,这一发现确实存在一些局限性。利用国家住院患者样本,我们确定了≥80 岁接受二尖瓣修复术的外科队列,并使用倾向匹配将其与接受 TMVR 的相似队列进行比较。在一个平衡良好的队列中,TMVR 与显著较低的住院死亡率(0.7%对 3.1%)相关。TMVR 还与急性肾损伤、心源性休克、术后出血、输血、永久性起搏器以及呼吸和血管并发症等住院并发症显著减少相关。因此,TMVR 的住院时间大约减少了 6 天。趋势分析表明,这些老年患者的治疗模式发生了转变,2012 年所有修复手术中有 85%是通过手术完成的,而 2016 年几乎 94%的修复手术是通过经导管途径完成的。总之,在≥80 岁的患者中,与 TMVR 相比,外科 MVR 的死亡率高 4 倍,且伴有更高的心脏、血管、出血和呼吸并发症。尽管存在观察性研究的局限性,但这些数据强烈支持在≥80 岁的患者中优先选择经导管二尖瓣修复术。