Aniket S Rali, Siva S Taduru, Lena E Tran, Sagar Ranka, Kelly H Schlendorf, Colin M Barker, Ashish S Shah, JoAnn Lindenfeld, Sandip K Zalawadiya
{"title":"经导管主动脉瓣置换术和手术主动脉瓣置换术在左心室辅助装置不全患者中的效果。","authors":"Aniket S Rali, Siva S Taduru, Lena E Tran, Sagar Ranka, Kelly H Schlendorf, Colin M Barker, Ashish S Shah, JoAnn Lindenfeld, Sandip K Zalawadiya","doi":"10.15420/cfr.2022.21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Worsening aortic insufficiency (AI) is a known sequela of prolonged continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support with a significant impact on patient outcomes. While medical treatment may relieve symptoms, it is unlikely to halt progression. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are among non-medical interventions available to address post-LVAD AI. Limited data are available on outcomes with either SAVR or TAVR for the management of post-LVAD AI. <b>Methods:</b> The National Inpatient Sample data collected for hospital admissions between the years 2015 and 2018 for patients with pre-existing continuous-flow LVAD undergoing TAVR or SAVR for AI were queried. The primary outcome of interest was a composite of in-hospital mortality, stroke, transient ischaemic attack, MI, pacemaker implantation, need for open aortic valve surgery, vascular complications and cardiac tamponade. <b>Results:</b> Patients undergoing TAVR were more likely to receive their procedure during an elective admission (57.1 versus 30%, p=0.002), and a significantly higher prevalence of comorbidities, as assessed by the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, was observed in the SAVR group (29 versus 18; p=0.0001). We observed a significantly higher prevalence of the primary composite outcome in patients undergoing SAVR (30%) compared with TAVR (14.3%; p=0.001). Upon multivariable analysis adjusting for the type of admission and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, TAVR was associated with significantly lower odds of the composite outcome (odds ratio 0.243; 95% CI [0.06-0.97]; p=0.045). <b>Conclusion:</b> In this nationally representative cohort of LVAD patients with post-implant AI, it was observed that TAVR was associated with a lower risk of adverse short-term outcomes compared with SAVR.</p>","PeriodicalId":33741,"journal":{"name":"Cardiac Failure Review","volume":"8 ","pages":"e30"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/4a/cd/cfr-08-e30.PMC9819997.pdf","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients with Aortic Insufficiency.\",\"authors\":\"Aniket S Rali, Siva S Taduru, Lena E Tran, Sagar Ranka, Kelly H Schlendorf, Colin M Barker, Ashish S Shah, JoAnn Lindenfeld, Sandip K Zalawadiya\",\"doi\":\"10.15420/cfr.2022.21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Worsening aortic insufficiency (AI) is a known sequela of prolonged continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support with a significant impact on patient outcomes. While medical treatment may relieve symptoms, it is unlikely to halt progression. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are among non-medical interventions available to address post-LVAD AI. Limited data are available on outcomes with either SAVR or TAVR for the management of post-LVAD AI. <b>Methods:</b> The National Inpatient Sample data collected for hospital admissions between the years 2015 and 2018 for patients with pre-existing continuous-flow LVAD undergoing TAVR or SAVR for AI were queried. The primary outcome of interest was a composite of in-hospital mortality, stroke, transient ischaemic attack, MI, pacemaker implantation, need for open aortic valve surgery, vascular complications and cardiac tamponade. <b>Results:</b> Patients undergoing TAVR were more likely to receive their procedure during an elective admission (57.1 versus 30%, p=0.002), and a significantly higher prevalence of comorbidities, as assessed by the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, was observed in the SAVR group (29 versus 18; p=0.0001). We observed a significantly higher prevalence of the primary composite outcome in patients undergoing SAVR (30%) compared with TAVR (14.3%; p=0.001). Upon multivariable analysis adjusting for the type of admission and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, TAVR was associated with significantly lower odds of the composite outcome (odds ratio 0.243; 95% CI [0.06-0.97]; p=0.045). <b>Conclusion:</b> In this nationally representative cohort of LVAD patients with post-implant AI, it was observed that TAVR was associated with a lower risk of adverse short-term outcomes compared with SAVR.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":33741,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cardiac Failure Review\",\"volume\":\"8 \",\"pages\":\"e30\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/4a/cd/cfr-08-e30.PMC9819997.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cardiac Failure Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15420/cfr.2022.21\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiac Failure Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15420/cfr.2022.21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
摘要
背景:主动脉功能不全(AI)恶化是左心室辅助装置(LVAD)长期持续支持的已知后遗症,对患者预后有显著影响。虽然药物治疗可以缓解症状,但不太可能阻止病情的发展。手术主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)和经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)是解决lvad后AI的非药物干预措施。关于SAVR或TAVR治疗lvad后AI的结果数据有限。方法:查询2015年至2018年期间已存在的连续流LVAD患者接受TAVR或SAVR治疗的住院患者的全国住院样本数据。研究的主要终点是住院死亡率、卒中、短暂性缺血性发作、心肌梗死、起搏器植入、主动脉瓣开腹手术、血管并发症和心脏填塞的综合结果。结果:接受TAVR的患者更有可能在选择性入院期间接受手术(57.1比30%,p=0.002),并且根据Elixhauser合并症指数评估,在SAVR组中观察到明显更高的合并症患病率(29比18;p = 0.0001)。我们观察到SAVR患者的主要综合结局发生率(30%)明显高于TAVR患者(14.3%;p = 0.001)。在调整入院类型和Elixhauser合并症指数的多变量分析中,TAVR与综合结局的几率显著降低相关(比值比0.243;95% ci [0.06-0.97];p = 0.045)。结论:在这个具有全国代表性的LVAD患者植入后AI队列中,观察到与SAVR相比,TAVR与较低的不良短期预后风险相关。
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients with Aortic Insufficiency.
Background: Worsening aortic insufficiency (AI) is a known sequela of prolonged continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support with a significant impact on patient outcomes. While medical treatment may relieve symptoms, it is unlikely to halt progression. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are among non-medical interventions available to address post-LVAD AI. Limited data are available on outcomes with either SAVR or TAVR for the management of post-LVAD AI. Methods: The National Inpatient Sample data collected for hospital admissions between the years 2015 and 2018 for patients with pre-existing continuous-flow LVAD undergoing TAVR or SAVR for AI were queried. The primary outcome of interest was a composite of in-hospital mortality, stroke, transient ischaemic attack, MI, pacemaker implantation, need for open aortic valve surgery, vascular complications and cardiac tamponade. Results: Patients undergoing TAVR were more likely to receive their procedure during an elective admission (57.1 versus 30%, p=0.002), and a significantly higher prevalence of comorbidities, as assessed by the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, was observed in the SAVR group (29 versus 18; p=0.0001). We observed a significantly higher prevalence of the primary composite outcome in patients undergoing SAVR (30%) compared with TAVR (14.3%; p=0.001). Upon multivariable analysis adjusting for the type of admission and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, TAVR was associated with significantly lower odds of the composite outcome (odds ratio 0.243; 95% CI [0.06-0.97]; p=0.045). Conclusion: In this nationally representative cohort of LVAD patients with post-implant AI, it was observed that TAVR was associated with a lower risk of adverse short-term outcomes compared with SAVR.