{"title":"对接受经导管主动脉瓣置换术的双尖瓣主动脉瓣狭窄患者,使用球囊扩张瓣膜或自扩张瓣膜的疗效和安全性具有可比性。","authors":"Yung-Tsai Lee, Wei-Hsian Yin, Tien-Ping Tsao, Kuo-Chen Lee, Huan-Chiu Lin, Chun-Ting Liu, Ming-Chon Hsiung, Jeng Wei","doi":"10.1097/JCMA.0000000000001155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The present study aimed to investigate whether proper sizing can improve the procedural and clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with new-generation self-expanding valves (SEVs) and balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) for treating bicuspid aortic stenosis (BAS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients who underwent TAVR with Sapien 3 valves (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) or Evolut R/PRO valves (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) for severe BAS from 2017 to 2022. The primary endpoints were device success rate and major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCEs), including mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction or disabling stroke, transcatheter heart valve failure, or clinically relevant valve thrombosis during follow-up. Our team used a complementary approach of supraannular sizing in addition to the conventional annular sizing method (Wei's method) to guide the TAVR procedures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We recruited a total of 75 consecutive patients, of whom 43 (57%) were treated with BEVs from October 2017 to June 2021, and 32 (43%) were treated with SEVs from July 2021 to December 2022. Device success was similar between the BEV and SEV groups (93% vs 94%; p > 0.99), and no cases of annular rupture occurred in either group. Similar rates of moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak were observed in the BEV and SEV groups (5% vs 6%, p > 0.99). At a median follow-up of 464 days, the MACCE rates were comparable between the two groups. In multivariate analysis, the presence of previous percutaneous coronary interventions (hazard ratio: 5.43; p = 0.039) and New York Heart Association functional class III/IV heart failure at 30 days of follow-up after TAVR (hazard ratio: 9.90; p = 0.037) were independently associated with long-term MACCEs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety for BAS patients undergoing TAVR using either BEVs or SEVs when using Wei's sizing method.</p>","PeriodicalId":94115,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA","volume":" ","pages":"993-1001"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparable efficacy and safety for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with balloon-expandable or self-expanding valves using Wei's sizing method.\",\"authors\":\"Yung-Tsai Lee, Wei-Hsian Yin, Tien-Ping Tsao, Kuo-Chen Lee, Huan-Chiu Lin, Chun-Ting Liu, Ming-Chon Hsiung, Jeng Wei\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/JCMA.0000000000001155\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The present study aimed to investigate whether proper sizing can improve the procedural and clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with new-generation self-expanding valves (SEVs) and balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) for treating bicuspid aortic stenosis (BAS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients who underwent TAVR with Sapien 3 valves (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) or Evolut R/PRO valves (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) for severe BAS from 2017 to 2022. The primary endpoints were device success rate and major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCEs), including mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction or disabling stroke, transcatheter heart valve failure, or clinically relevant valve thrombosis during follow-up. Our team used a complementary approach of supraannular sizing in addition to the conventional annular sizing method (Wei's method) to guide the TAVR procedures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We recruited a total of 75 consecutive patients, of whom 43 (57%) were treated with BEVs from October 2017 to June 2021, and 32 (43%) were treated with SEVs from July 2021 to December 2022. Device success was similar between the BEV and SEV groups (93% vs 94%; p > 0.99), and no cases of annular rupture occurred in either group. Similar rates of moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak were observed in the BEV and SEV groups (5% vs 6%, p > 0.99). At a median follow-up of 464 days, the MACCE rates were comparable between the two groups. In multivariate analysis, the presence of previous percutaneous coronary interventions (hazard ratio: 5.43; p = 0.039) and New York Heart Association functional class III/IV heart failure at 30 days of follow-up after TAVR (hazard ratio: 9.90; p = 0.037) were independently associated with long-term MACCEs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety for BAS patients undergoing TAVR using either BEVs or SEVs when using Wei's sizing method.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94115,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"993-1001\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/JCMA.0000000000001155\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JCMA.0000000000001155","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:本研究旨在探讨适当的尺寸是否能改善使用新一代自扩张瓣膜(SEVs)和球囊扩张瓣膜(BEVs)治疗双尖瓣主动脉瓣狭窄(BAS)的经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)的手术和临床结果:我们回顾性评估了2017年至2022年连续接受TAVR的患者,这些患者因严重BAS而接受了Sapien 3瓣膜(Edwards Lifesciences,Irvine,CA)或Evolut R/PRO瓣膜(Medtronic,Minneapolis,MN)治疗。主要终点是设备成功率和主要心脑不良事件(MACCE),包括随访期间的死亡率、非致命性心肌梗死或致残性中风、经导管心脏瓣膜功能衰竭或临床相关的瓣膜血栓形成。除了传统的瓣环尺寸测量方法(魏氏方法),我们的团队还采用了瓣环上尺寸测量的补充方法来指导TAVR手术:我们共招募了 75 名连续患者,其中 43 人(57%)在 2017 年 10 月至 2021 年 6 月期间接受了 BEV 治疗,32 人(43%)在 2021 年 7 月至 2022 年 12 月期间接受了 SEV 治疗。BEV组和SEV组的装置成功率相似(93% vs. 94%; p > 0.99),两组均未发生瓣环破裂。BEV 组和 SEV 组的中重度瓣膜旁漏发生率相似(5% 对 6%,P > 0.99)。在 464 天的中位随访中,两组的 MACCE 发生率相当。在多变量分析中,既往经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(危险比:5.43;P = 0.039)和TAVR术后30天随访时纽约心脏协会功能分级III/IV级心衰(危险比:9.90;P = 0.037)与长期MACCEs独立相关:我们的研究结果表明,在使用魏氏尺寸法时,使用 BEV 或 SEV 进行 TAVR 的 BAS 患者的疗效和安全性相当。
Comparable efficacy and safety for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with balloon-expandable or self-expanding valves using Wei's sizing method.
Background: The present study aimed to investigate whether proper sizing can improve the procedural and clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with new-generation self-expanding valves (SEVs) and balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) for treating bicuspid aortic stenosis (BAS).
Methods: We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients who underwent TAVR with Sapien 3 valves (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) or Evolut R/PRO valves (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) for severe BAS from 2017 to 2022. The primary endpoints were device success rate and major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCEs), including mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction or disabling stroke, transcatheter heart valve failure, or clinically relevant valve thrombosis during follow-up. Our team used a complementary approach of supraannular sizing in addition to the conventional annular sizing method (Wei's method) to guide the TAVR procedures.
Results: We recruited a total of 75 consecutive patients, of whom 43 (57%) were treated with BEVs from October 2017 to June 2021, and 32 (43%) were treated with SEVs from July 2021 to December 2022. Device success was similar between the BEV and SEV groups (93% vs 94%; p > 0.99), and no cases of annular rupture occurred in either group. Similar rates of moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak were observed in the BEV and SEV groups (5% vs 6%, p > 0.99). At a median follow-up of 464 days, the MACCE rates were comparable between the two groups. In multivariate analysis, the presence of previous percutaneous coronary interventions (hazard ratio: 5.43; p = 0.039) and New York Heart Association functional class III/IV heart failure at 30 days of follow-up after TAVR (hazard ratio: 9.90; p = 0.037) were independently associated with long-term MACCEs.
Conclusion: Our results demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety for BAS patients undergoing TAVR using either BEVs or SEVs when using Wei's sizing method.