• 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

经导管主动脉瓣置换术入路及其他基线因素对急性肾损伤发生率的影响:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Effect of TAVR Approach and Other Baseline Factors on the Incidence of Acute Kidney Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

机构信息

Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

出版信息

J Interv Cardiol. 2022 Oct 27;2022:3380605. doi: 10.1155/2022/3380605. eCollection 2022.

DOI:10.1155/2022/3380605
PMID:36348992
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9633203/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a well-known complication following a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and is associated with higher morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to compare the risk of developing AKI after transfemoral (TF), transapical (TA), and transaortic (TAo) approaches following TAVR.

METHODS

We searched Medline and EMBASE databases from January 2009 to January 2021. We included studies that evaluated the risk of AKI based on different TAVR approaches. After extracting each study's data, we calculated the risk ratio and 95% confidence intervals using RevMan software 5.4. Publication bias was assessed by the forest plot.

RESULTS

Thirty-six (36) studies, consisting of 70,406 patients undergoing TAVR were included. Thirty-five studies compared TF to TA, and only seven investigations compared TF to TAo. AKI was documented in 4,857 out of 50,395 (9.6%) patients that underwent TF TAVR compared to 3,155 out of 19,721 (16%) patients who underwent TA-TAVR, with a risk ratio of 0.49 (95% CI, 0.36-0.66; p < 0.00001). Likewise, 273 patients developed AKI out of the 1,840 patients (14.8%) that underwent TF-TAVR in contrast to 67 patients out of the 421 patients (15.9%) that underwent TAo-TAVR, with a risk ratio of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.27-0.98;  = 0.04). There was no significant risk when we compared TA to TAo approaches, with a risk ratio of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.29-2.75;  = 0.84).

CONCLUSION

The risk of post-TAVR AKI is significantly lower in patients who underwent TF-TAVR than those who underwent TA-TAVR or TAo-TAVR.

摘要

背景

急性肾损伤(AKI)是经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)后的一种已知并发症,与更高的发病率和死亡率相关。

目的

我们旨在比较经股(TF)、经心尖(TA)和经主动脉(TAo)入路行 TAVR 后发生 AKI 的风险。

方法

我们检索了 2009 年 1 月至 2021 年 1 月的 Medline 和 EMBASE 数据库。我们纳入了根据不同 TAVR 途径评估 AKI 风险的研究。在提取每项研究的数据后,我们使用 RevMan 软件 5.4 计算风险比和 95%置信区间。通过森林图评估发表偏倚。

结果

纳入了 36 项(36 项)研究,共计 70406 例接受 TAVR 的患者。35 项研究比较了 TF 与 TA,只有 7 项研究比较了 TF 与 TAo。在接受 TF-TAVR 的 50395 例患者中,有 4857 例(9.6%)发生 AKI,而在接受 TA-TAVR 的 19721 例患者中,有 3155 例(16%)发生 AKI,风险比为 0.49(95%CI,0.36-0.66;p<0.00001)。同样,在接受 TF-TAVR 的 1840 例患者中,有 273 例(14.8%)发生 AKI,而在接受 TAo-TAVR 的 421 例患者中,有 67 例(15.9%)发生 AKI,风险比为 0.51(95%CI,0.27-0.98;p=0.04)。比较 TA 与 TAo 途径时,风险无显著差异,风险比为 0.89(95%CI,0.29-2.75;p=0.84)。

结论

与接受 TA-TAVR 或 TAo-TAVR 的患者相比,接受 TF-TAVR 的患者发生 TAVR 后 AKI 的风险显著降低。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4e97/9633203/3b6063b791b1/JITC2022-3380605.007.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4e97/9633203/37bb7240de72/JITC2022-3380605.001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4e97/9633203/5b414ad6d078/JITC2022-3380605.002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4e97/9633203/8af6d2be5a07/JITC2022-3380605.003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4e97/9633203/c8d4151bfcf1/JITC2022-3380605.004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4e97/9633203/c48199703391/JITC2022-3380605.005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4e97/9633203/af991edfeca1/JITC2022-3380605.006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4e97/9633203/3b6063b791b1/JITC2022-3380605.007.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4e97/9633203/37bb7240de72/JITC2022-3380605.001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4e97/9633203/5b414ad6d078/JITC2022-3380605.002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4e97/9633203/8af6d2be5a07/JITC2022-3380605.003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4e97/9633203/c8d4151bfcf1/JITC2022-3380605.004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4e97/9633203/c48199703391/JITC2022-3380605.005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4e97/9633203/af991edfeca1/JITC2022-3380605.006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4e97/9633203/3b6063b791b1/JITC2022-3380605.007.jpg

相似文献

1
Effect of TAVR Approach and Other Baseline Factors on the Incidence of Acute Kidney Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.经导管主动脉瓣置换术入路及其他基线因素对急性肾损伤发生率的影响:系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Interv Cardiol. 2022 Oct 27;2022:3380605. doi: 10.1155/2022/3380605. eCollection 2022.
2
Transapical versus transfemoral approach and risk of acute kidney injury following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a propensity-adjusted analysis.经心尖与经股动脉入路及经导管主动脉瓣置换术后急性肾损伤风险:一项倾向调整分析
Ren Fail. 2017 Nov;39(1):13-18. doi: 10.1080/0886022X.2016.1244072. Epub 2016 Oct 21.
3
Direct Comparison of Feasibility and Safety of Transfemoral Versus Transaortic Versus Transapical Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.经股动脉入路与经主动脉入路和经心尖入路经导管主动脉瓣置换术的可行性和安全性的直接比较。
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Nov 28;9(22):2320-2325. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.08.009.
4
Dose approach matter? A meta-analysis of outcomes following transfemoral versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement.经股动脉与经心尖途径行主动脉瓣置换术的结局:剂量相关吗?一项荟萃分析。
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2021 Jul 28;21(1):358. doi: 10.1186/s12872-021-02158-4.
5
Alternative access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in older adults: A collaborative study from France and United States.经导管主动脉瓣置换术在老年患者中的替代入路:来自法国和美国的合作研究。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Nov 15;92(6):1182-1193. doi: 10.1002/ccd.27690. Epub 2018 Jul 3.
6
Outcomes, readmissions, and costs in transfemoral and alterative access transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the US Medicare population.美国医疗保险人群中经股动脉和其他入路经导管主动脉瓣置换术的结局、再入院和费用。
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017 Oct;154(4):1224-1232.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2017.04.090. Epub 2017 Jun 16.
7
The risk of acute kidney injury following transapical versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.经心尖与经股动脉经导管主动脉瓣置换术后急性肾损伤的风险:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Clin Kidney J. 2016 Aug;9(4):560-6. doi: 10.1093/ckj/sfw055. Epub 2016 Jun 19.
8
Alternative Access Versus Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Nonagenarians.非agenarians中经导管主动脉瓣置换术的替代入路与经股动脉入路对比
J Invasive Cardiol. 2019 Jun;31(6):171-175. Epub 2019 Apr 15.
9
Network Meta-Analysis Comparing the Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Alternative Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.比较经导管主动脉瓣置换术不同入路短期和长期结果的网状Meta分析
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2022 Jul;40:1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2021.11.040. Epub 2021 Dec 3.
10
Left ventricular remodeling and function after transapical versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement.经心尖与经股动脉主动脉瓣置换术后左心室重构和功能变化。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Nov 1;94(5):738-744. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28074. Epub 2019 Jan 27.

引用本文的文献

1
Postoperative Acute Kidney Injury After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.经导管主动脉瓣置换术后的急性肾损伤
Curr Anesthesiol Rep. 2024 Jun;14(2):312-317. doi: 10.1007/s40140-024-00626-z. Epub 2024 Apr 1.

本文引用的文献

1
Contrast-Induced Nephropathy in Patients Undergoing Staged Versus Concomitant Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and Coronary Procedures.分期与同期行经导管主动脉瓣置换术和冠状动脉介入治疗的患者对比剂肾病。
J Am Heart Assoc. 2021 Aug 3;10(15):e020599. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.020599. Epub 2021 Jul 26.
2
Outcomes of surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in nonagenarians- a systematic review and meta-analysis.非agenarians中外科手术与经导管主动脉瓣置换术的结局——一项系统评价和荟萃分析。 (注:这里“agenarians”有误,可能是“nonagenarians”即九旬老人之意,按纠正后词汇翻译的完整译文:九旬老人中外科手术与经导管主动脉瓣置换术的结局——一项系统评价和荟萃分析。)
J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2021 Jan 26;11(1):128-134. doi: 10.1080/20009666.2020.1843235.
3
2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.
2020 ACC/AHA 瓣膜性心脏病患者管理指南:执行摘要:美国心脏病学会/美国心脏协会联合临床实践指南委员会的报告。
Circulation. 2021 Feb 2;143(5):e35-e71. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000932. Epub 2020 Dec 17.
4
Efficacy and Safety of Transcatheter vs. Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-to-Intermediate-Risk Patients: A Meta-Analysis.经导管与外科主动脉瓣置换术在低至中危患者中的疗效与安全性:一项荟萃分析
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2020 Nov 16;7:590975. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2020.590975. eCollection 2020.
5
Meta-Analysis Comparing Renal Outcomes after Transcatheter versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.经导管主动脉瓣置换术与外科主动脉瓣置换术后的肾脏结局的荟萃分析
J Interv Cardiol. 2019 Apr 24;2019:3537256. doi: 10.1155/2019/3537256. eCollection 2019.
6
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.低风险患者经导管主动脉瓣置换术:随机对照试验的荟萃分析
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020 Apr;21(4):461-466. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2019.08.008. Epub 2019 Aug 16.
7
Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low and intermediate risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score matching observational studies.低中风险重度主动脉瓣狭窄患者经导管主动脉瓣置换术与外科主动脉瓣置换术的比较:随机对照试验和倾向评分匹配观察性研究的系统评价和荟萃分析
J Thorac Dis. 2019 May;11(5):1945-1962. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.04.97.
8
Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Balloon-Expandable Valve in Low-Risk Patients.经皮球囊扩张式主动脉瓣置换术治疗低危患者。
N Engl J Med. 2019 May 2;380(18):1695-1705. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814052. Epub 2019 Mar 16.
9
Acute kidney injury after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the elderly: outcomes and risk management.老年患者经导管主动脉瓣置换术后的急性肾损伤:结局和风险管理。
Clin Interv Aging. 2019 Jan 21;14:195-201. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S149916. eCollection 2019.
10
Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Meta-Analysis.经导管主动脉瓣置换术与外科主动脉瓣置换术治疗慢性肾脏病患者的比较:一项荟萃分析。
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2019 Aug;33(8):2221-2230. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2018.12.010. Epub 2018 Dec 5.