Suppr超能文献

外科生物瓣主动脉瓣置换术后抗栓治疗无效。

Nonusefulness of Antithrombotic Therapy After Surgical Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement.

机构信息

Aortic Institute at Yale-New Haven Hospital, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Aortic Institute at Yale-New Haven Hospital, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

出版信息

Am J Cardiol. 2020 Aug 15;129:71-78. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.05.018. Epub 2020 May 18.

Abstract

Controversy persists regarding the advisability of anticoagulation for the early period after biological surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). We aim to examine the impact of various antithrombotic regimens on outcomes in a large cohort of biological AVR patients. Records of 1,111 consecutive adult patients who underwent surgical biological AVR at our institution between 2013 and 2017 were reviewed. Outcomes included stroke, bleeding, and death at 3 and 12 months. Treatment regimens included (1) no therapy, (2) anticoagulants (warfarin or Factor Xa inhibitors), (2) antiplateles (various), and (4) anticoagulants + antiplatelets. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to track outcomes, and Cox-proportional hazards regression models were conducted to analyze effects of different therapies on adverse events. At 3 months, thromboembolic events were low and not significantly different between the no therapy group (2.2%) and anticoagulation (2.8%) or anticoagulation + antiplatelet (3.6%) or all groups (3.7%). The antiplatelet group was just significantly lower, at 2.2%. However, this was driven by non-stroke cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease. The incidence of death at 3 months was low and not significantly different between all groups. At 12 months, there were no thromboembolic benefits between groups, but bleeding events were significantly higher in the anticoagulation group (no therapy (1.4%), anticoagulation (8.4%), antiplatelet (4.5%), anticoagulation + antiplatelet (7.9%)). In conclusion, none of the antithrombotic regimens showed benefits in stroke or survival at 3 or 12 months after biological AVR. Anticoagulation increased bleeding events. Routine anticoagulation after biological AVR appears to be unnecessary and potentially harmful.

摘要

关于在生物瓣主动脉瓣置换术(AVR)后早期进行抗凝治疗的适宜性仍存在争议。我们旨在研究在大型生物 AVR 患者队列中,各种抗血栓形成方案对结局的影响。回顾了 2013 年至 2017 年期间在我们机构接受外科生物 AVR 的 1111 例连续成年患者的记录。结局包括 3 个月和 12 个月时的中风、出血和死亡。治疗方案包括(1)无治疗,(2)抗凝剂(华法林或 Xa 因子抑制剂),(2)抗血小板(各种)和(4)抗凝剂+抗血小板。使用 Kaplan-Meier 分析来跟踪结局,并用 Cox 比例风险回归模型分析不同治疗对不良事件的影响。在 3 个月时,血栓栓塞事件发生率低,且无治疗组(2.2%)与抗凝组(2.8%)或抗凝+抗血小板组(3.6%)或所有组(3.7%)之间无显著差异。抗血小板组明显较低,为 2.2%。然而,这是由冠心病患者的非中风心血管事件驱动的。3 个月时的死亡率较低,且各组之间无显著差异。在 12 个月时,各组之间没有血栓栓塞获益,但抗凝组的出血事件明显更高(无治疗组(1.4%)、抗凝组(8.4%)、抗血小板组(4.5%)、抗凝+抗血小板组(7.9%))。总之,在生物 AVR 后 3 个月或 12 个月时,没有一种抗血栓形成方案在中风或生存方面显示出获益。抗凝增加了出血事件。生物瓣 AVR 后常规抗凝似乎是不必要的,并且可能有害。

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