目前对生物人工主动脉瓣置换术后血流动力学结构性瓣膜恶化的定义缺乏一致性

Bart J.J. Velders MD , Michiel D. Vriesendorp MD, PhD , Federico M. Asch MD , Michael J. Reardon MD , Francois Dagenais MD , Michael G. Moront MD , Joseph F. Sabik III MD , Rolf H.H. Groenwold MD, PhD , Robert J.M. Klautz MD, PhD
{"title":"目前对生物人工主动脉瓣置换术后血流动力学结构性瓣膜恶化的定义缺乏一致性","authors":"Bart J.J. Velders MD ,&nbsp;Michiel D. Vriesendorp MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Federico M. Asch MD ,&nbsp;Michael J. Reardon MD ,&nbsp;Francois Dagenais MD ,&nbsp;Michael G. Moront MD ,&nbsp;Joseph F. Sabik III MD ,&nbsp;Rolf H.H. Groenwold MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Robert J.M. Klautz MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.xjon.2024.02.023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>New echocardiographic definitions have been proposed for hemodynamic structural valve deterioration. We aimed to study their consistency in classifying structural valve deterioration after surgical aortic valve replacement.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Data were used of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement in a multicenter, prospective cohort study with a 5-year follow-up. All patients received the same stented bioprosthesis. Echocardiographic parameters were assessed by an independent core laboratory. Moderate or greater stenotic hemodynamic structural valve deterioration was defined according to Capodanno and colleagues, Dvir and colleagues, and the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3; regurgitation data were not considered in this analysis. Consistency was quantified on the basis of structural valve deterioration classification at subsequent time points.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 1118 patients received implants. Patients’ mean age was 70 years, and 75% were male. Hemodynamic structural valve deterioration at any visit was present in 51 patients (4.6%), 32 patients (2.9%), and 34 patients (3.0%) according to Capodanno, Dvir, and Valve Academic Research Consortium 3. A total of 1064 patients (95%) were never labeled with structural valve deterioration by any definition. After the first classification with structural valve deterioration, 59%, 59%, and 65% had no subsequent structural valve deterioration classification according to Capodanno, Dvir, and Valve Academic Research Consortium 3, respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The current definitions of hemodynamic structural valve deterioration are strong negative predictors but inconsistent positive discriminators for the detection of stenotic hemodynamic structural valve deterioration. Although the diagnosis of structural valve deterioration may be categorical, echocardiographic indices lack this degree of precision in the first 5 years after surgical aortic valve replacement. The inconsistency of current structural valve deterioration definitions impedes the detection of true valve degeneration, which challenges the clinical usefulness of these definitions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74032,"journal":{"name":"JTCVS open","volume":"19 ","pages":"Pages 68-90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666273624000597/pdfft?md5=b09e5cceb462850bc2444a7be1282d40&pid=1-s2.0-S2666273624000597-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Current definitions of hemodynamic structural valve deterioration after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement lack consistency\",\"authors\":\"Bart J.J. Velders MD ,&nbsp;Michiel D. Vriesendorp MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Federico M. Asch MD ,&nbsp;Michael J. Reardon MD ,&nbsp;Francois Dagenais MD ,&nbsp;Michael G. Moront MD ,&nbsp;Joseph F. Sabik III MD ,&nbsp;Rolf H.H. Groenwold MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Robert J.M. Klautz MD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.xjon.2024.02.023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>New echocardiographic definitions have been proposed for hemodynamic structural valve deterioration. We aimed to study their consistency in classifying structural valve deterioration after surgical aortic valve replacement.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Data were used of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement in a multicenter, prospective cohort study with a 5-year follow-up. All patients received the same stented bioprosthesis. Echocardiographic parameters were assessed by an independent core laboratory. Moderate or greater stenotic hemodynamic structural valve deterioration was defined according to Capodanno and colleagues, Dvir and colleagues, and the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3; regurgitation data were not considered in this analysis. Consistency was quantified on the basis of structural valve deterioration classification at subsequent time points.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 1118 patients received implants. Patients’ mean age was 70 years, and 75% were male. Hemodynamic structural valve deterioration at any visit was present in 51 patients (4.6%), 32 patients (2.9%), and 34 patients (3.0%) according to Capodanno, Dvir, and Valve Academic Research Consortium 3. A total of 1064 patients (95%) were never labeled with structural valve deterioration by any definition. After the first classification with structural valve deterioration, 59%, 59%, and 65% had no subsequent structural valve deterioration classification according to Capodanno, Dvir, and Valve Academic Research Consortium 3, respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The current definitions of hemodynamic structural valve deterioration are strong negative predictors but inconsistent positive discriminators for the detection of stenotic hemodynamic structural valve deterioration. Although the diagnosis of structural valve deterioration may be categorical, echocardiographic indices lack this degree of precision in the first 5 years after surgical aortic valve replacement. The inconsistency of current structural valve deterioration definitions impedes the detection of true valve degeneration, which challenges the clinical usefulness of these definitions.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74032,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JTCVS open\",\"volume\":\"19 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 68-90\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666273624000597/pdfft?md5=b09e5cceb462850bc2444a7be1282d40&pid=1-s2.0-S2666273624000597-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JTCVS open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666273624000597\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JTCVS open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666273624000597","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 对血流动力学结构性瓣膜恶化提出了新的超声心动图定义。我们的目的是研究这些定义在手术主动脉瓣置换术后结构性瓣膜恶化分类中的一致性。方法 在一项多中心、前瞻性队列研究中,对接受手术主动脉瓣置换术的患者进行了为期 5 年的随访。所有患者都接受了相同的支架生物假体。超声心动图参数由独立的核心实验室进行评估。根据Capodanno及其同事、Dvir及其同事和瓣膜学术研究联盟3对中度或更严重的狭窄血流动力学结构性瓣膜恶化进行了定义;本分析不考虑反流数据。根据后续时间点的结构性瓣膜恶化分类对一致性进行量化。患者的平均年龄为 70 岁,75% 为男性。根据 Capodanno、Dvir 和 Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 的分类,51 名患者(4.6%)、32 名患者(2.9%)和 34 名患者(3.0%)在任何一次就诊时均出现血流动力学结构性瓣膜恶化。共有 1064 名患者(95%)从未被任何定义标记为结构性瓣膜恶化。根据 Capodanno、Dvir 和瓣膜学术研究联盟 3,在首次进行结构性瓣膜恶化分类后,分别有 59%、59% 和 65% 的患者没有进行后续的结构性瓣膜恶化分类。虽然结构性瓣膜恶化的诊断可以分类,但在主动脉瓣置换术后的头 5 年中,超声心动图指标缺乏这种精确度。目前结构性瓣膜退化定义的不一致性阻碍了对真正瓣膜退化的检测,这对这些定义的临床实用性提出了挑战。
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
Current definitions of hemodynamic structural valve deterioration after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement lack consistency

Objective

New echocardiographic definitions have been proposed for hemodynamic structural valve deterioration. We aimed to study their consistency in classifying structural valve deterioration after surgical aortic valve replacement.

Methods

Data were used of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement in a multicenter, prospective cohort study with a 5-year follow-up. All patients received the same stented bioprosthesis. Echocardiographic parameters were assessed by an independent core laboratory. Moderate or greater stenotic hemodynamic structural valve deterioration was defined according to Capodanno and colleagues, Dvir and colleagues, and the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3; regurgitation data were not considered in this analysis. Consistency was quantified on the basis of structural valve deterioration classification at subsequent time points.

Results

A total of 1118 patients received implants. Patients’ mean age was 70 years, and 75% were male. Hemodynamic structural valve deterioration at any visit was present in 51 patients (4.6%), 32 patients (2.9%), and 34 patients (3.0%) according to Capodanno, Dvir, and Valve Academic Research Consortium 3. A total of 1064 patients (95%) were never labeled with structural valve deterioration by any definition. After the first classification with structural valve deterioration, 59%, 59%, and 65% had no subsequent structural valve deterioration classification according to Capodanno, Dvir, and Valve Academic Research Consortium 3, respectively.

Conclusions

The current definitions of hemodynamic structural valve deterioration are strong negative predictors but inconsistent positive discriminators for the detection of stenotic hemodynamic structural valve deterioration. Although the diagnosis of structural valve deterioration may be categorical, echocardiographic indices lack this degree of precision in the first 5 years after surgical aortic valve replacement. The inconsistency of current structural valve deterioration definitions impedes the detection of true valve degeneration, which challenges the clinical usefulness of these definitions.

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
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Repair of acute type A aortic dissection: The simplest solution is not always the best Are there etiology-specific risk factors for adverse outcomes in patients on Impella 5.5 support? Type B aortic dissection in Marfan patients after the David procedure: Insights from patient-specific simulation Reoperation after aortic root replacement and its impact on long-term survival Should we wait until the morning?
×
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