Evaluation of Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis after TAVI with Self-Expandable vs. Balloon-Expandable Devices

Mohammad Nourizadeh, Seifollah Abdi, Farideh Roshan Ali, Najmeh Assadinia, Mehdi Nourizadeh, Mohammad Emami, Elham Barati, Amir Taha Asarian
{"title":"Evaluation of Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis after TAVI with Self-Expandable vs. Balloon-Expandable Devices","authors":"Mohammad Nourizadeh, Seifollah Abdi, Farideh Roshan Ali, Najmeh Assadinia, Mehdi Nourizadeh, Mohammad Emami, Elham Barati, Amir Taha Asarian","doi":"10.4236/wjcd.2023.1310056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (SAS) has expanded the therapeutic possibilities for successfully managing SAS in cases with intermediate and high surgical risks. However, the complications and outcomes of new devices have not been studied enough. Hence, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the midterm results of the Core Valve and Evolute R self-expandable (SE) devices versus the Edwards SAPIEN balloon-expandable (BE) devices. Methods and Material: This was a quasi-experimental study conducted in Tehran, Iran, from May 2012 to June 2017. SAS patients who were not ideal candidates for surgery were randomly assigned to either SE or BE groups. For each patient, a questionnaire, including four sections comprised of Basic characteristics, echocardiographic, angiographic, and Computed Tomography (CT) scan data was filled. TAVI was followed by echocardiography a week later and after three months they were reevaluated by another questionnaire. Results: The total number of patients was 60. The mean ages of patients undergoing the procedure with SE or BE devices were 81.2 ± 8 and 79.8 ± 7, respectively. Mortality occurred in 20% of the patients (5 cases in the SE group and 7 cases in the BE); mortality causes were 66.6 % cardiac and 33% non-cardiac. Moderate to severe Paravalvular leakage in both groups did not differ significantly. The mortality rate was 5 (41.6%) in the SE group versus 7 (58.3%) in the BE group (P > 0.05). Conclusion: In conclusion, the BE group did not experience fewer paravalvular leaks in comparison with the SE. Morbidity and mortality between the BE and the SE groups did not differ significantly.","PeriodicalId":67027,"journal":{"name":"心血管病(英文)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"心血管病(英文)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/wjcd.2023.1310056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (SAS) has expanded the therapeutic possibilities for successfully managing SAS in cases with intermediate and high surgical risks. However, the complications and outcomes of new devices have not been studied enough. Hence, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the midterm results of the Core Valve and Evolute R self-expandable (SE) devices versus the Edwards SAPIEN balloon-expandable (BE) devices. Methods and Material: This was a quasi-experimental study conducted in Tehran, Iran, from May 2012 to June 2017. SAS patients who were not ideal candidates for surgery were randomly assigned to either SE or BE groups. For each patient, a questionnaire, including four sections comprised of Basic characteristics, echocardiographic, angiographic, and Computed Tomography (CT) scan data was filled. TAVI was followed by echocardiography a week later and after three months they were reevaluated by another questionnaire. Results: The total number of patients was 60. The mean ages of patients undergoing the procedure with SE or BE devices were 81.2 ± 8 and 79.8 ± 7, respectively. Mortality occurred in 20% of the patients (5 cases in the SE group and 7 cases in the BE); mortality causes were 66.6 % cardiac and 33% non-cardiac. Moderate to severe Paravalvular leakage in both groups did not differ significantly. The mortality rate was 5 (41.6%) in the SE group versus 7 (58.3%) in the BE group (P > 0.05). Conclusion: In conclusion, the BE group did not experience fewer paravalvular leaks in comparison with the SE. Morbidity and mortality between the BE and the SE groups did not differ significantly.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重度主动脉瓣狭窄患者TAVI术后使用自膨胀装置与球囊膨胀装置的比较
背景:引入经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)治疗重度主动脉瓣狭窄(SAS),扩大了在中高手术风险病例中成功治疗SAS的治疗可能性。然而,新器械的并发症和结果还没有得到足够的研究。因此,本研究的目的是评估Core Valve和Evolute R自膨胀(SE)装置与Edwards SAPIEN气球膨胀(BE)装置的中期结果。方法与材料:这是一项准实验研究,于2012年5月至2017年6月在伊朗德黑兰进行。不适合手术的SAS患者被随机分配到SE组或BE组。每位患者填写一份问卷,包括四个部分,包括基本特征、超声心动图、血管造影和计算机断层扫描(CT)扫描数据。一周后进行超声心动图检查,三个月后再次进行问卷调查。结果:患者总数60例。使用SE或BE装置进行手术的患者平均年龄分别为81.2±8岁和79.8±7岁。20%的患者死亡(SE组5例,BE组7例);死亡原因中66.6%为心脏原因,33%为非心脏原因。两组间中度至重度瓣旁漏无显著差异。SE组死亡率为5例(41.6%),BE组死亡率为7例(58.3%)(P > 0.05)。结论:综上所述,BE组与SE组相比,瓣旁渗漏并没有减少。BE组和SE组的发病率和死亡率无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
555
期刊最新文献
Improving Cardiovascular Risk Assessment to Optimize Therapy Hygienic and Dietary Measures in Cameroonian Hypertensive Patients Followed at the Douala General Hospital: Knowledge, Compliance and Effect on Blood Pressure Control Predictive Factors of No Reflow during Primary Angioplasty Effect of Mindful Meditation, Physical Activity, and Diet to Reduce the Risk to Develop or Reduce Severity of Cardiovascular Diseases in Saudi Arabia: A Systematic Review Rare Etiology of Reversible Hypokinetic Dilatated Heart Disease in Infants: Bland-White-Garland Syndrome (ALCAPA)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1