经导管主动脉瓣置换术中瓣膜有意过大:越大越好吗?大型单中心经验

IF 1.4 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Structural Heart Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI:10.1016/j.shj.2023.100278
Khawaja Afzal Ammar MD , Alexandria Graeber BS , Abdur Rahman Ahmad MD , Jodi Zilinski MD , Daniel P. O’Hair MD , Renuka Jain MD , Suhail Q. Allaqaband MD , Tanvir Bajwa MD
{"title":"经导管主动脉瓣置换术中瓣膜有意过大:越大越好吗?大型单中心经验","authors":"Khawaja Afzal Ammar MD ,&nbsp;Alexandria Graeber BS ,&nbsp;Abdur Rahman Ahmad MD ,&nbsp;Jodi Zilinski MD ,&nbsp;Daniel P. O’Hair MD ,&nbsp;Renuka Jain MD ,&nbsp;Suhail Q. Allaqaband MD ,&nbsp;Tanvir Bajwa MD","doi":"10.1016/j.shj.2023.100278","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The current clinical practice standard is 10% to 20% oversizing of self-expanding valves in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. We aimed to determine whether &gt;20% oversizing of self-expanding valves (Medtronic Evolut) would lead to better valve performance with similar or better outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>From October 2011 to December 2016, we approached all transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients with a conscious attempt at large oversizing (&gt;20%). The most common valve used, excluding those used in valve-in-valve patients, was the 29-mm Evolut R (29%). We used a retrospective chart review to compare moderate oversizing (group 1; 10% to 20%) with large oversizing (group 2; &gt;20%).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 556 patients, 45% were male; the overall mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 5.8 ± 3.8. Eighty-five (15%) patients needed a pacemaker, and 21 (3.8%) developed significant paravalvular leak. Mean oversizing was 20.3% ± 6.0%, with 41.4% of patients included in group 1 and 54.5% in group 2. Incidences of complications in group 2 vs. group 1 were as follows: a) paravalvular leak (2.0 vs. 6.1%; odds ratio = 0.31, <em>p</em> = 0.01), b) pacemaker (15 vs. 14%), c) gastrointestinal bleed (n = 4 vs. 0; 1.3 vs. 0.0%; <em>p</em> = 0.03), d) annular dissection (n = 1 vs. 0; 0.3 vs. 0%; <em>p</em> = 0.29), e) mortality (n = 5 vs. 4; 1.6 vs. 1.7%). Incidence of paravalvular leak was higher in those who died than survivors (13 vs. 1.3%; <em>p</em> ≤ 0.0001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>These data suggest that, in current self-expanding valves, &gt;20% oversizing delivers a significantly lower prevalence of paravalvular leak without an increase in other complications. Since paravalvular leak is associated with increased mortality, &gt;20% oversizing may represent a superior prosthesis choice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36053,"journal":{"name":"Structural Heart","volume":"8 3","pages":"Article 100278"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2474870623002294/pdfft?md5=618648d083cfd5a7c1c483c5ce1b3ec9&pid=1-s2.0-S2474870623002294-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intentional Oversizing of Valve in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Is Bigger Better? A Large, Single-Center Experience\",\"authors\":\"Khawaja Afzal Ammar MD ,&nbsp;Alexandria Graeber BS ,&nbsp;Abdur Rahman Ahmad MD ,&nbsp;Jodi Zilinski MD ,&nbsp;Daniel P. O’Hair MD ,&nbsp;Renuka Jain MD ,&nbsp;Suhail Q. Allaqaband MD ,&nbsp;Tanvir Bajwa MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.shj.2023.100278\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The current clinical practice standard is 10% to 20% oversizing of self-expanding valves in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. We aimed to determine whether &gt;20% oversizing of self-expanding valves (Medtronic Evolut) would lead to better valve performance with similar or better outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>From October 2011 to December 2016, we approached all transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients with a conscious attempt at large oversizing (&gt;20%). The most common valve used, excluding those used in valve-in-valve patients, was the 29-mm Evolut R (29%). We used a retrospective chart review to compare moderate oversizing (group 1; 10% to 20%) with large oversizing (group 2; &gt;20%).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 556 patients, 45% were male; the overall mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 5.8 ± 3.8. Eighty-five (15%) patients needed a pacemaker, and 21 (3.8%) developed significant paravalvular leak. Mean oversizing was 20.3% ± 6.0%, with 41.4% of patients included in group 1 and 54.5% in group 2. Incidences of complications in group 2 vs. group 1 were as follows: a) paravalvular leak (2.0 vs. 6.1%; odds ratio = 0.31, <em>p</em> = 0.01), b) pacemaker (15 vs. 14%), c) gastrointestinal bleed (n = 4 vs. 0; 1.3 vs. 0.0%; <em>p</em> = 0.03), d) annular dissection (n = 1 vs. 0; 0.3 vs. 0%; <em>p</em> = 0.29), e) mortality (n = 5 vs. 4; 1.6 vs. 1.7%). Incidence of paravalvular leak was higher in those who died than survivors (13 vs. 1.3%; <em>p</em> ≤ 0.0001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>These data suggest that, in current self-expanding valves, &gt;20% oversizing delivers a significantly lower prevalence of paravalvular leak without an increase in other complications. Since paravalvular leak is associated with increased mortality, &gt;20% oversizing may represent a superior prosthesis choice.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36053,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Structural Heart\",\"volume\":\"8 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 100278\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2474870623002294/pdfft?md5=618648d083cfd5a7c1c483c5ce1b3ec9&pid=1-s2.0-S2474870623002294-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Structural Heart\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2474870623002294\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Structural Heart","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2474870623002294","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景目前的临床实践标准是在经导管主动脉瓣置换术中将自扩张瓣膜过大10%至20%。我们旨在确定>20%的自扩张瓣膜(美敦力 Evolut)过大是否会带来更好的瓣膜性能,以及相似或更好的预后。方法从 2011 年 10 月到 2016 年 12 月,我们接触了所有经导管主动脉瓣置换术患者,有意识地尝试大尺寸过大(>20%)。除瓣中瓣患者外,最常用的瓣膜是 29 毫米 Evolut R(29%)。我们使用回顾性病历审查对中度过大(第 1 组;10% 至 20%)和大度过大(第 2 组;>20%)进行了比较。结果 在 556 名患者中,45% 为男性;胸外科医师协会风险评分的总体平均值为 5.8 ± 3.8。85名患者(15%)需要安装起搏器,21名患者(3.8%)出现了严重的瓣膜旁漏。平均过大比例为 20.3% ± 6.0%,其中 41.4% 的患者属于第一组,54.5% 的患者属于第二组。 第二组与第一组的并发症发生率如下:a) 腔旁漏(2.0 vs. 6.1%;几率比 = 0.31, p = 0.01),b) 起搏器(15 vs. 14%),c) 胃肠道出血(n = 4 vs. 0; 1.3 vs. 0.0%; p = 0.03),d) 瓣环剥离(n = 1 vs. 0; 0.3 vs. 0%; p = 0.29),e) 死亡率(n = 5 vs. 4; 1.6 vs. 1.7%)。结论这些数据表明,在目前的自扩张瓣膜中,>20%的过大可显著降低瓣膜旁漏的发生率,而不会增加其他并发症。由于瓣膜旁漏与死亡率增加有关,>20%过大可能是一种更好的假体选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Intentional Oversizing of Valve in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Is Bigger Better? A Large, Single-Center Experience

Background

The current clinical practice standard is 10% to 20% oversizing of self-expanding valves in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. We aimed to determine whether >20% oversizing of self-expanding valves (Medtronic Evolut) would lead to better valve performance with similar or better outcomes.

Methods

From October 2011 to December 2016, we approached all transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients with a conscious attempt at large oversizing (>20%). The most common valve used, excluding those used in valve-in-valve patients, was the 29-mm Evolut R (29%). We used a retrospective chart review to compare moderate oversizing (group 1; 10% to 20%) with large oversizing (group 2; >20%).

Results

Of 556 patients, 45% were male; the overall mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 5.8 ± 3.8. Eighty-five (15%) patients needed a pacemaker, and 21 (3.8%) developed significant paravalvular leak. Mean oversizing was 20.3% ± 6.0%, with 41.4% of patients included in group 1 and 54.5% in group 2. Incidences of complications in group 2 vs. group 1 were as follows: a) paravalvular leak (2.0 vs. 6.1%; odds ratio = 0.31, p = 0.01), b) pacemaker (15 vs. 14%), c) gastrointestinal bleed (n = 4 vs. 0; 1.3 vs. 0.0%; p = 0.03), d) annular dissection (n = 1 vs. 0; 0.3 vs. 0%; p = 0.29), e) mortality (n = 5 vs. 4; 1.6 vs. 1.7%). Incidence of paravalvular leak was higher in those who died than survivors (13 vs. 1.3%; p ≤ 0.0001).

Conclusions

These data suggest that, in current self-expanding valves, >20% oversizing delivers a significantly lower prevalence of paravalvular leak without an increase in other complications. Since paravalvular leak is associated with increased mortality, >20% oversizing may represent a superior prosthesis choice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Structural Heart
Structural Heart Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
81
期刊最新文献
Moderate Aortic Stenosis—Advanced Imaging, Risk Assessment, and Treatment Strategies The Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement-Conduction Study: The Value of the His-Ventricular Interval in Risk Stratification for Post-TAVR Atrioventricular-Block Large Field-of-View Intravascular Ultrasound for Mitral and Tricuspid Valve-in-Valve Guidance: A Pilot Study Quantitative Aortography Analysis of JenaValve’s Trilogy Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation System in Patients With Aortic Regurgitation or Stenosis A Novel Risk Score Facilitates Femoral Artery Access in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Passage-Puncture Score
×
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