Y-切口主动脉瓣环扩大术与传统主动脉瓣环扩大术的短期疗效比较。

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Annals of cardiothoracic surgery Pub Date : 2024-05-31 Epub Date: 2024-01-12 DOI:10.21037/acs-2023-aae-0102
Alexander Makkinejad, Joanna Hua, Kenneth R Hassler, Katelyn Monaghan, Karen Kim, Shinichi Fukuhara, Himanshu J Patel, Bo Yang
{"title":"Y-切口主动脉瓣环扩大术与传统主动脉瓣环扩大术的短期疗效比较。","authors":"Alexander Makkinejad, Joanna Hua, Kenneth R Hassler, Katelyn Monaghan, Karen Kim, Shinichi Fukuhara, Himanshu J Patel, Bo Yang","doi":"10.21037/acs-2023-aae-0102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The short-term efficacy and safety of the Y-incision technique of aortic annular enlargement (AAE) has been established. We aimed to determine how the short-term outcomes of the Y-incision technique compared to traditional AAE techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From February 2011 to June 2022, 380 patients at the University of Michigan Hospital underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with AAE using either traditional annular enlargement techniques (Traditional group, n=270), including Nicks [63% (171/270)], Manouguian [34% (91/270)], and others [3% (8/270)], or the Y-incision technique (Y-incision group, n=110). Propensity score matching was performed by controlling for age, sex, body surface area (BSA), hypertension, diabetes, dialysis, chronic lung disease, stroke, prior cardiac surgery, primary indication, operative status, concomitant procedures, and prosthesis type, to generate a balanced cohort of 103 pairs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no differences in demographics, comorbidities, primary indications of the operations, or concomitant procedures between the matched groups. The median native aortic annulus diameter, measured in the operating room, was 21 mm for both groups. Median prosthesis size was 23 in the Traditional group, and 27 in the Y-incision group (P<0.001). There were no differences in perioperative complications/outcomes between the matched groups, including operative mortality, which was 3.9% (8/206) overall. Short-term survival was similar between the groups on Kaplan-Meier analysis; one-year survival was 95% in the Traditional group, and 97% in the Y-incision group (P=0.54). The Y-incision group had significantly lower mean aortic valve gradients (7 <i>vs.</i> 10 mmHg, P<0.001), larger aortic valve areas (2.2 <i>vs.</i> 1.8 cm<sup>2</sup>, P=0.007), and less moderate/severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) (5.5% <i>vs.</i> 23%, P=0.039) on one-year follow-up echocardiography.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Y-incision technique was as safe and more effective in enlarging the aortic annulus and upsizing the prosthetic valve than the traditional techniques of AAE in AVR for small aortic annuli.</p>","PeriodicalId":8067,"journal":{"name":"Annals of cardiothoracic surgery","volume":"13 3","pages":"255-265"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11148761/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the short-term outcomes between Y-incision aortic annular enlargement and traditional aortic annular enlargement techniques.\",\"authors\":\"Alexander Makkinejad, Joanna Hua, Kenneth R Hassler, Katelyn Monaghan, Karen Kim, Shinichi Fukuhara, Himanshu J Patel, Bo Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.21037/acs-2023-aae-0102\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The short-term efficacy and safety of the Y-incision technique of aortic annular enlargement (AAE) has been established. We aimed to determine how the short-term outcomes of the Y-incision technique compared to traditional AAE techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From February 2011 to June 2022, 380 patients at the University of Michigan Hospital underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with AAE using either traditional annular enlargement techniques (Traditional group, n=270), including Nicks [63% (171/270)], Manouguian [34% (91/270)], and others [3% (8/270)], or the Y-incision technique (Y-incision group, n=110). Propensity score matching was performed by controlling for age, sex, body surface area (BSA), hypertension, diabetes, dialysis, chronic lung disease, stroke, prior cardiac surgery, primary indication, operative status, concomitant procedures, and prosthesis type, to generate a balanced cohort of 103 pairs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no differences in demographics, comorbidities, primary indications of the operations, or concomitant procedures between the matched groups. The median native aortic annulus diameter, measured in the operating room, was 21 mm for both groups. Median prosthesis size was 23 in the Traditional group, and 27 in the Y-incision group (P<0.001). There were no differences in perioperative complications/outcomes between the matched groups, including operative mortality, which was 3.9% (8/206) overall. Short-term survival was similar between the groups on Kaplan-Meier analysis; one-year survival was 95% in the Traditional group, and 97% in the Y-incision group (P=0.54). The Y-incision group had significantly lower mean aortic valve gradients (7 <i>vs.</i> 10 mmHg, P<0.001), larger aortic valve areas (2.2 <i>vs.</i> 1.8 cm<sup>2</sup>, P=0.007), and less moderate/severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) (5.5% <i>vs.</i> 23%, P=0.039) on one-year follow-up echocardiography.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Y-incision technique was as safe and more effective in enlarging the aortic annulus and upsizing the prosthetic valve than the traditional techniques of AAE in AVR for small aortic annuli.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8067,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of cardiothoracic surgery\",\"volume\":\"13 3\",\"pages\":\"255-265\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11148761/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of cardiothoracic surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21037/acs-2023-aae-0102\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of cardiothoracic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/acs-2023-aae-0102","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:Y型切口技术治疗主动脉瓣环扩大(AAE)的短期疗效和安全性已经得到证实。我们旨在确定 Y 切口技术与传统 AAE 技术相比的短期疗效:2011年2月至2022年6月,密歇根大学医院的380名患者接受了主动脉瓣置换术(AVR),采用传统的瓣环扩大技术(传统组,n=270),包括Nicks[63% (171/270)]、Manouguian[34% (91/270)]和其他[3% (8/270)],或Y-切口技术(Y-切口组,n=110)。通过控制年龄、性别、体表面积(BSA)、高血压、糖尿病、透析、慢性肺病、中风、既往心脏手术、主要适应症、手术状态、伴随手术和假体类型,进行倾向得分匹配,以产生一个由 103 对患者组成的平衡队列:结果:配对组之间在人口统计学、合并症、手术的主要适应症或并发症方面没有差异。两组患者在手术室测量的原生主动脉瓣环直径中位数均为 21 毫米。传统组的假体中位尺寸为23,Y-切口组为27(Pvs.10 mmHg,Pvs.1.8 cm2,P=0.007),一年随访超声心动图显示中度/重度患者-假体不匹配(PPM)较少(5.5% vs. 23%,P=0.039):结论:与传统的小主动脉瓣环主动脉瓣置换术(AVE)相比,Y-切口技术在扩大主动脉瓣环和增大人工瓣膜方面同样安全有效。
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
Comparison of the short-term outcomes between Y-incision aortic annular enlargement and traditional aortic annular enlargement techniques.

Background: The short-term efficacy and safety of the Y-incision technique of aortic annular enlargement (AAE) has been established. We aimed to determine how the short-term outcomes of the Y-incision technique compared to traditional AAE techniques.

Methods: From February 2011 to June 2022, 380 patients at the University of Michigan Hospital underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with AAE using either traditional annular enlargement techniques (Traditional group, n=270), including Nicks [63% (171/270)], Manouguian [34% (91/270)], and others [3% (8/270)], or the Y-incision technique (Y-incision group, n=110). Propensity score matching was performed by controlling for age, sex, body surface area (BSA), hypertension, diabetes, dialysis, chronic lung disease, stroke, prior cardiac surgery, primary indication, operative status, concomitant procedures, and prosthesis type, to generate a balanced cohort of 103 pairs.

Results: There were no differences in demographics, comorbidities, primary indications of the operations, or concomitant procedures between the matched groups. The median native aortic annulus diameter, measured in the operating room, was 21 mm for both groups. Median prosthesis size was 23 in the Traditional group, and 27 in the Y-incision group (P<0.001). There were no differences in perioperative complications/outcomes between the matched groups, including operative mortality, which was 3.9% (8/206) overall. Short-term survival was similar between the groups on Kaplan-Meier analysis; one-year survival was 95% in the Traditional group, and 97% in the Y-incision group (P=0.54). The Y-incision group had significantly lower mean aortic valve gradients (7 vs. 10 mmHg, P<0.001), larger aortic valve areas (2.2 vs. 1.8 cm2, P=0.007), and less moderate/severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) (5.5% vs. 23%, P=0.039) on one-year follow-up echocardiography.

Conclusions: The Y-incision technique was as safe and more effective in enlarging the aortic annulus and upsizing the prosthetic valve than the traditional techniques of AAE in AVR for small aortic annuli.

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
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
Different styles in trocar placement in robotic-assisted beating heart coronary artery bypass grafting. Embracing industry in the development of robotic coronary bypass grafting-the sun rises in the East. Exposure technique for the circumflex artery territory in robotic totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting. How to advance from minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting to totally endoscopic coronary bypass grafting: challenges in Europe versus United States of America. How to robotically take down a mammary artery.
×
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