Emma Ellfors MD , Michael Dismorr MD, PhD , Andreas Rück MD, PhD , Magnus Settergren MD, PhD , Ulrik Sartipy MD, PhD , Natalie Glaser MD, PhD
{"title":"经导管主动脉瓣置换术后假体与患者不匹配的预测和长期临床结果:SWEDEHEART 研究。","authors":"Emma Ellfors MD , Michael Dismorr MD, PhD , Andreas Rück MD, PhD , Magnus Settergren MD, PhD , Ulrik Sartipy MD, PhD , Natalie Glaser MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.ahj.2024.07.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is uncertain. This study was performed to investigate the risk of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and aortic valve reintervention in patients with and without predicted PPM after TAVR.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This nationwide, population-based cohort study included all patients who underwent transfemoral primary TAVR in Sweden from 2008 to 2022 in the SWEDEHEART register. PPM was defined according to published effective orifice areas for each valve model and size. The patients were divided into those with and without PPM. Additional baseline characteristics and outcome data were obtained from other national health data registers. Regression standardization was used to adjust for intergroup differences.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 8485 patients, 7879 (93%) had no PPM and 606 (7%) had PPM. The crude cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality at 1, 5, and 10 years in patients with versus without PPM was 7% versus 9%, 40% versus 44%, and 80% versus 85%, respectively. After regression standardization, there was no between-group difference in long-term mortality, and the absolute difference at 10 years was 1.5% (95% confidence interval, −2.9%-6.0%). The mean follow-up was 3.0 years (maximum, 14 years). There was no difference in the risk of heart failure hospitalization or aortic valve reintervention.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The risk of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, or aortic valve reintervention was not higher in patients with than without predicted PPM following TAVR. Furthermore, PPM was present in only 7% of patients, and severe PPM was almost nonexistent.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7868,"journal":{"name":"American heart journal","volume":"276 ","pages":"Pages 70-82"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002870324001753/pdfft?md5=bb2ac12291f41d65005fc92a68449454&pid=1-s2.0-S0002870324001753-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predicted prosthesis–patient mismatch and long-term clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A SWEDEHEART study\",\"authors\":\"Emma Ellfors MD , Michael Dismorr MD, PhD , Andreas Rück MD, PhD , Magnus Settergren MD, PhD , Ulrik Sartipy MD, PhD , Natalie Glaser MD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ahj.2024.07.009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is uncertain. This study was performed to investigate the risk of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and aortic valve reintervention in patients with and without predicted PPM after TAVR.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This nationwide, population-based cohort study included all patients who underwent transfemoral primary TAVR in Sweden from 2008 to 2022 in the SWEDEHEART register. PPM was defined according to published effective orifice areas for each valve model and size. The patients were divided into those with and without PPM. Additional baseline characteristics and outcome data were obtained from other national health data registers. Regression standardization was used to adjust for intergroup differences.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 8485 patients, 7879 (93%) had no PPM and 606 (7%) had PPM. The crude cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality at 1, 5, and 10 years in patients with versus without PPM was 7% versus 9%, 40% versus 44%, and 80% versus 85%, respectively. After regression standardization, there was no between-group difference in long-term mortality, and the absolute difference at 10 years was 1.5% (95% confidence interval, −2.9%-6.0%). The mean follow-up was 3.0 years (maximum, 14 years). There was no difference in the risk of heart failure hospitalization or aortic valve reintervention.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The risk of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, or aortic valve reintervention was not higher in patients with than without predicted PPM following TAVR. Furthermore, PPM was present in only 7% of patients, and severe PPM was almost nonexistent.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7868,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American heart journal\",\"volume\":\"276 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 70-82\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002870324001753/pdfft?md5=bb2ac12291f41d65005fc92a68449454&pid=1-s2.0-S0002870324001753-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American heart journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002870324001753\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American heart journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002870324001753","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Predicted prosthesis–patient mismatch and long-term clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A SWEDEHEART study
Background
The impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is uncertain. This study was performed to investigate the risk of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and aortic valve reintervention in patients with and without predicted PPM after TAVR.
Methods
This nationwide, population-based cohort study included all patients who underwent transfemoral primary TAVR in Sweden from 2008 to 2022 in the SWEDEHEART register. PPM was defined according to published effective orifice areas for each valve model and size. The patients were divided into those with and without PPM. Additional baseline characteristics and outcome data were obtained from other national health data registers. Regression standardization was used to adjust for intergroup differences.
Results
Of 8485 patients, 7879 (93%) had no PPM and 606 (7%) had PPM. The crude cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality at 1, 5, and 10 years in patients with versus without PPM was 7% versus 9%, 40% versus 44%, and 80% versus 85%, respectively. After regression standardization, there was no between-group difference in long-term mortality, and the absolute difference at 10 years was 1.5% (95% confidence interval, −2.9%-6.0%). The mean follow-up was 3.0 years (maximum, 14 years). There was no difference in the risk of heart failure hospitalization or aortic valve reintervention.
Conclusions
The risk of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, or aortic valve reintervention was not higher in patients with than without predicted PPM following TAVR. Furthermore, PPM was present in only 7% of patients, and severe PPM was almost nonexistent.
期刊介绍:
The American Heart Journal will consider for publication suitable articles on topics pertaining to the broad discipline of cardiovascular disease. Our goal is to provide the reader primary investigation, scholarly review, and opinion concerning the practice of cardiovascular medicine. We especially encourage submission of 3 types of reports that are not frequently seen in cardiovascular journals: negative clinical studies, reports on study designs, and studies involving the organization of medical care. The Journal does not accept individual case reports or original articles involving bench laboratory or animal research.