• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

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.

DOI:10.1016/j.ijcard.2020.02.035
PMID:32087937
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。

相似文献

1
Femoral transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation as alternative strategy for failed aortic bioprostheses: A single-centre experience with long-term follow-up.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。
Int J Cardiol. 2020 May 1;306:25-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2020.02.035. Epub 2020 Feb 13.
2
Transcatheter ViV Versus Redo Surgical AVR for the Management of Failed Biological Prosthesis: Early and Late Outcomes in a Propensity-Matched Cohort.经导管 ViV 与再次开胸主动脉瓣置换术治疗生物瓣衰败:倾向评分匹配队列的早期和晚期结果。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Mar 23;13(6):765-774. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.10.030. Epub 2020 Jan 15.
3
Transcatheter valve-in-valve versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve: A systematic review and meta-analysis.经导管瓣中瓣术与再次开胸主动脉瓣置换术治疗退行性生物瓣主动脉瓣的疗效比较:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Dec 1;92(7):1404-1411. doi: 10.1002/ccd.27686. Epub 2018 Jul 19.
4
Redo-aortic valve replacement in prior stentless prosthetic aortic valves: Transcatheter versus surgical approach.再次行主动脉瓣置换术于既往无支架生物瓣主动脉瓣:经导管与外科途径。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 Jan 1;99(1):181-192. doi: 10.1002/ccd.29921. Epub 2021 Aug 17.
5
Meta-analysis comparing valve-in-valve TAVR and redo-SAVR in patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve.比较生物人工主动脉瓣退变患者行瓣中瓣经导管主动脉瓣置换术和再次外科主动脉瓣置换术的荟萃分析。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Nov 1;98(5):940-947. doi: 10.1002/ccd.29789. Epub 2021 Jun 10.
6
Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with failed aortic bioprostheses.经导管主动脉瓣置入术与主动脉生物瓣置换失败患者再次行外科主动脉瓣置换术的比较
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2017 Jan;24(1):63-70. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivw300. Epub 2016 Sep 13.
7
Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Degenerative Stentless Versus Stented Bioprostheses.经导管主动脉瓣置换术后退行性无支架与有支架生物瓣的结局。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Jul 8;12(13):1256-1263. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.02.036. Epub 2019 Jun 12.
8
Comparative performance of transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation versus conventional surgical redo aortic valve replacement in patients with degenerated aortic valve bioprostheses: systematic review and meta-analysis.经导管主动脉瓣瓣中瓣植入术与传统再次主动脉瓣置换术治疗退行性生物瓣主动脉瓣患者的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018 Mar 1;53(3):495-504. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezx347.
9
Interventional versus Surgical Treatment of Degenerated Freestyle Prosthesis.介入与手术治疗退行性 Freestyle 假体。
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2024 Apr;72(3):188-196. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1763286. Epub 2023 Mar 1.
10
Implications of Concomitant Tricuspid Regurgitation in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Degenerated Surgical Aortic Bioprosthesis: Insights From the PARTNER 2 Aortic Valve-in-Valve Registry.行经导管主动脉瓣置换术治疗退行性外科生物瓣患者并发三尖瓣反流的意义:来自 PARTNER 2 主动脉瓣瓣中瓣注册研究的结果。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Jun 25;11(12):1154-1160. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.03.019.

引用本文的文献

1
Rationale and Design of the REPEAT Trial: A Multicenter Randomized Trial Comparing Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement to Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.重复试验的原理与设计:一项比较再次手术主动脉瓣置换术与经导管主动脉瓣置入术(瓣中瓣)的多中心随机试验。
J Am Heart Assoc. 2025 May 20;14(10):e040954. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.125.040954. Epub 2025 May 15.
2
Clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of self-expanding and balloon-expandable valves for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI): An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.用于经导管主动脉瓣置入术(ViV-TAVI)的自膨胀式和球囊扩张式瓣膜的临床及血流动力学结果:一项更新的系统评价和荟萃分析
Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2025 Feb 24;57:101627. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2025.101627. eCollection 2025 Apr.
3
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgery for failed bioprosthesis: a meta-analysis of over 20 000 patients.经导管主动脉瓣植入术与生物瓣膜置换失败后的外科手术治疗比较:一项针对20000多名患者的荟萃分析
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2025 Mar 1;26(3):153-166. doi: 10.2459/JCM.0000000000001702. Epub 2025 Jan 20.
4
Enhancing Thromboembolic Risk Prediction in Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation: The Critical Role of Transesophageal Echocardiography (TEE).提高非瓣膜性心房颤动的血栓栓塞风险预测:经食管超声心动图(TEE)的关键作用。
Cureus. 2024 Dec 20;16(12):e76064. doi: 10.7759/cureus.76064. eCollection 2024 Dec.
5
Saudi Heart Association/National Heart Center/Saudi Arabian Cardiac Interventional Society/Saudi Society for Cardiac Surgeons/Saudi Cardiac Imaging Group 2023 TAVI Guidelines.沙特心脏协会/国家心脏中心/沙特阿拉伯心脏介入学会/沙特心脏外科医生协会/沙特心脏影像小组2023年经导管主动脉瓣置入术指南
J Saudi Heart Assoc. 2024 Aug 15;36(2):184-231. doi: 10.37616/2212-5043.1379. eCollection 2024.
6
Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Valve-In-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Reconstructed Time-To-Event Meta-Analysis.再次手术主动脉瓣置换术与经导管主动脉瓣置入术治疗人工瓣膜衰败:一项系统评价与重构的事件时间荟萃分析
J Clin Med. 2023 Jan 9;12(2):541. doi: 10.3390/jcm12020541.
7
Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.经导管主动脉瓣置换术治疗失败的外科生物瓣的再次手术主动脉瓣置换术与再次手术主动脉瓣置换术的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Am Heart Assoc. 2022 Dec 20;11(24):e7965. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.024848. Epub 2022 Dec 19.
8
Renal outcomes in valve-in-valve transcatheter versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.经导管主动脉瓣置换术中经瓣植入 versus 再次外科主动脉瓣置换术的肾脏结局:系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Card Surg. 2022 Nov;37(11):3743-3753. doi: 10.1111/jocs.16890. Epub 2022 Aug 30.
9
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Degenerated Surgical Aortic Bioprosthesis: A Systematic Review.经导管主动脉瓣植入术治疗退化性外科主动脉生物瓣膜:一项系统评价。
Heart Views. 2022 Jan-Mar;23(1):1-9. doi: 10.4103/heartviews.heartviews_25_22. Epub 2022 May 16.
10
High Residual Gradient Following a Self-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Implantation - Risk Factor Analysis, Outcomes, and Survival.经导管主动脉瓣置换术中瓣中瓣自膨式支架植入后残余梯度高:危险因素分析、结果和生存。
Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2022 Oct 8;37(5):710-720. doi: 10.21470/1678-9741-2020-0424.