Suppr超能文献

经导管股动脉瓣中瓣植入术作为主动脉生物瓣衰败的替代治疗策略:单中心长期随访经验。

Femoral transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation as alternative strategy for failed aortic bioprostheses: A single-centre experience with long-term follow-up.

机构信息

Sana Heart Center Cottbus, Department of Cardiac Surgery, Cottbus, Germany.

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Heart Diseases Center MEDINET, Nowa Sol, Poland.

出版信息

Int J Cardiol. 2020 May 1;306:25-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2020.02.035. Epub 2020 Feb 13.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Surgical reoperation is still a standard procedure performed for degenerated aortic bioprostheses. On the other hand femoral minimally invasive valve-in-valve implantation (femTAVI-VIV) is an intriguing alternative. This clinical study was design to compare the early and late outcomes of redo-surgery (Redo-AVR) and femTAVI-VIV procedures for failed aortic bioprostheses.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 108 patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses qualified for isolated Redo-AVR (n = 40) or femTAVI-VIV (n = 68) between 2003 and 2018. Both cohorts were divided into intermediate and high-risk groups according to the EuroSCORE II (4-9% and >9%). Propensity score matching selected 20 pairs in Intermediate-risk group and 10 pairs in High-risk group for the final comparison.

RESULTS

Patients qualified for femTAVI-VIV were older (79.2 vs 72.9 years, p < 0.001) and at higher risk (EuroSCORE II 10.9 vs 7.8%, p = 0.005) than Redo-AVR subjects. Overall survival in femTAVI-VIV and Redo-AVR was comparable at 30-days, 1- and 5-years, respectively (92.6% vs 92.5%, 85.2% vs 85.0% and 62.9% vs 72.5%, p = 0.287). After PSM no differences in mortality, myocardial infarction, pacemaker implantation, stroke or acute renal insufficiency were found. Transcatheter procedure was associated with shorter hospital stay, lower rate of blood products transfusions and higher incidence of mild paravalvular leaks.

CONCLUSION

Our study supports the opinion that transcatheter approach for treatment of patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses is a safe alternative to Redo-AVR procedures particularly for those at high-risk.

摘要

背景

外科再次手术仍然是治疗退行性主动脉生物瓣的标准程序。另一方面,股动脉微创经导管瓣中瓣植入术(femTAVI-VIV)是一种很有吸引力的替代方法。本临床研究旨在比较再次手术(Redo-AVR)和 femTAVI-VIV 治疗失败的主动脉生物瓣的早期和晚期结果。

方法

我们回顾性分析了 2003 年至 2018 年间因退行性主动脉生物瓣符合单独 Redo-AVR(n=40)或 femTAVI-VIV(n=68)适应证的 108 例患者。根据 EuroSCORE II(4-9%和>9%),两组患者均分为中危组和高危组。倾向评分匹配选择了中危组 20 对和高危组 10 对进行最终比较。

结果

符合 femTAVI-VIV 适应证的患者年龄较大(79.2 岁比 72.9 岁,p<0.001),风险较高(EuroSCORE II 为 10.9%比 7.8%,p=0.005)。 femTAVI-VIV 和 Redo-AVR 的 30 天、1 年和 5 年总生存率分别相当(92.6%比 92.5%、85.2%比 85.0%和 62.9%比 72.5%,p=0.287)。经过 PSM 后,死亡率、心肌梗死、起搏器植入、卒中和急性肾功能不全无差异。经导管治疗与较短的住院时间、较低的血液制品输注率和较高的轻度瓣周漏发生率相关。

结论

我们的研究支持这样的观点,即对于退行性主动脉生物瓣患者,经导管治疗是 Redo-AVR 治疗的一种安全替代方法,特别是对于高危患者。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验