Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Providence, Rhode Island, USA; Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2024 Oct 28;17(20):2367-2376. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2024.08.033.
Transfemoral (TF) access is the preferred approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Limited data exist regarding the outcomes of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL)-assisted TF TAVR in patients with peripheral artery disease.
This study sought to examine contemporary characteristics, trends, and outcomes of IVL TAVR in the United States.
The Vizient Clinical Database was queried for patients who underwent percutaneous TAVR between October 1, 2020, and November 30, 2023. Outcomes with IVL TAVR vs non-IVL TAVR were examined after propensity score matching. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, stroke, vascular complications, surgical vascular intervention, and major bleeding.
Over the study period, 129,655 patients (mean age of 78.4 years, 42.2% women, 87.1% White) underwent percutaneous TAVR at 361 hospitals, 1,242 (0.96%) of whom underwent IVL TAVR. There was an uptrend in IVL TAVR, but the frequency remained low. IVL TAVR patients had a higher median Elixhauser comorbidity score (5 [Q1-Q3: 4-7] vs 4 [Q1-Q3: 3-6]) compared to non-IVL TAVR. TAVR was completed via the TF approach in 1,238 (99.7%) IVL TAVR patients. In a 3:1 propensity score matching analysis, IVL TAVR was associated with a higher rate of the primary composite outcome (21.9% vs 13.7%; P < 0.001) driven by higher rates of vascular complications, surgical vascular intervention, and major bleeding. In-hospital death and stroke were similar in both groups.
In the United States, IVL is increasingly adopted to facilitate TF TAVR. IVL TAVR patients exhibited a higher burden of comorbidities and experienced more complications compared to non-IVL TAVR patients. Further studies are needed to identify appropriate anatomical and clinical use criteria for IVL TAVR and to compare its outcomes vs alternative non-TF TAVR.
经股动脉(TF)入路是经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)的首选方法。关于血管内碎石术(IVL)辅助 TF TAVR 在周围动脉疾病患者中的结果,目前仅有有限的数据。
本研究旨在检查美国 IVL TAVR 的当代特征、趋势和结果。
在 2020 年 10 月 1 日至 2023 年 11 月 30 日期间,检索 Vizient 临床数据库中接受经皮 TAVR 的患者。在倾向评分匹配后,比较 IVL TAVR 与非-IVL TAVR 的结果。主要结局是院内死亡、卒、血管并发症、外科血管介入和大出血的复合结局。
在研究期间,在 361 家医院中,有 129655 例(平均年龄 78.4 岁,42.2%为女性,87.1%为白人)患者接受了经皮 TAVR,其中 1242 例(0.96%)患者接受了 IVL TAVR。IVL TAVR 的应用呈上升趋势,但频率仍然较低。与非-IVL TAVR 相比,IVL TAVR 患者的中位 Elixhauser 合并症评分更高(5 [Q1-Q3:4-7] vs 4 [Q1-Q3:3-6])。1238 例(99.7%)IVL TAVR 患者的 TAVR 通过 TF 途径完成。在 3:1 的倾向评分匹配分析中,IVL TAVR 与更高的主要复合结局发生率相关(21.9% vs 13.7%;P<0.001),这主要归因于血管并发症、外科血管介入和大出血的发生率更高。两组患者院内死亡率和卒发生率相似。
在美国,IVL 越来越多地被采用以促进 TF TAVR。与非-IVL TAVR 相比,IVL TAVR 患者的合并症负担更高,并发症更多。需要进一步研究来确定 IVL TAVR 的适当解剖和临床应用标准,并比较其结果与替代非 TF TAVR。