Jonik Szymon, Marchel Michał, Pędzich-Placha Ewa, Huczek Zenon, Kochman Janusz, Ścisło Piotr, Czub Paweł, Wilimski Radosław, Hendzel Piotr, Opolski Grzegorz, Grabowski Marcin, Mazurek Tomasz
1st Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Warsaw, Banacha 1a Str., 01-267 Warsaw, Poland.
Department of Cardiac Surgery, Medical University of Warsaw, Banacha 1a Str., 01-267 Warsaw, Poland.
J Clin Med. 2021 Nov 19;10(22):5408. doi: 10.3390/jcm10225408.
This retrospective study was proposed to investigate outcomes of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) after implementation of various treatment strategies following dedicated Heart Team (HT) decisions.
Primary and secondary endpoints and quality of life during a median follow-up of 866 days of patients with severe AS qualified after HT discussion to: optimal medical treatment (OMT) alone, OMT and transcather aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or OMT and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) were evaluated. As the primary endpoint composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal disabling strokes and non-fatal rehospitalizations for AS were considered, while other clinical outcomes were determined as secondary endpoints.
From 2016 to 2019, 176 HT meetings were held, and a total of 482 participants with severe AS and completely implemented HT decisions (OMT, TAVR and SAVR for 79, 318 and 85, respectively) were included in the final analysis. SAVR and TAVR were found to be superior to OMT for primary and all secondary endpoints ( < 0.05). Comparing interventional strategies only, TAVR was associated with reduced risk of acute kidney injury, new onset of atrial fibrillation and major bleeding, while the superiority of SAVR for major vascular complications and need for permanent pacemaker implantation was observed ( < 0.05). The quality of life assessed at the end of follow-up was significantly better for patients who underwent TAVR or SAVR than in OMT-group ( < 0.05).
We demonstrated that after careful implementation of HT decisions interventional strategies compared to OMT only provide superior outcomes and quality of life for patients with AS.
本回顾性研究旨在调查在心脏团队(HT)做出专门决策后,采用各种治疗策略的重度主动脉瓣狭窄(AS)患者的治疗结果。
对经HT讨论符合条件的重度AS患者进行了为期866天的中位随访,评估其主要和次要终点以及生活质量,这些患者接受以下治疗:单纯最佳药物治疗(OMT)、OMT与经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)或OMT与外科主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)。将全因死亡率、非致死性致残性中风和因AS导致的非致死性再次住院的复合终点作为主要终点,而其他临床结局则确定为次要终点。
2016年至2019年共召开了176次HT会议,最终分析纳入了482例重度AS且完全执行HT决策的参与者(分别有79例、318例和85例接受OMT、TAVR和SAVR)。在主要终点和所有次要终点方面,SAVR和TAVR均优于OMT(<0.05)。仅比较介入策略时,TAVR与急性肾损伤、新发房颤和大出血风险降低相关,而SAVR在主要血管并发症和永久性起搏器植入需求方面具有优势(<0.05)。随访结束时评估的生活质量,接受TAVR或SAVR的患者明显优于OMT组(<0.05)。
我们证明,在仔细执行HT决策后,与仅采用OMT相比,介入策略可为AS患者提供更好的治疗结果和生活质量。