主动脉瓣狭窄低风险患者孤立手术和经导管主动脉瓣置换术后的中期临床疗效。

Kazuma Handa, Koichi Maeda, Kyongsun Pak, Kazuo Shimamura, Kizuku Yamashita, Ai Kawamura, Shigeru Miyagawa
{"title":"主动脉瓣狭窄低风险患者孤立手术和经导管主动脉瓣置换术后的中期临床疗效。","authors":"Kazuma Handa, Koichi Maeda, Kyongsun Pak, Kazuo Shimamura, Kizuku Yamashita, Ai Kawamura, Shigeru Miyagawa","doi":"10.5761/atcs.oa.24-00123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transfemoral (TF)-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-risk aortic stenosis (AS) patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 696 low-risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score <4%) AS patients underwent isolated SAVR or TF-TAVR at five centers. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 159 pairs were identified. Early and follow-up events, including cardiac mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE: all-cause mortality, heart failure admission, reoperation, prosthetic valve endocarditis, and stroke), were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline characteristics are similar between the matched groups. There were no 30-day cardiac mortalities in either group. All-cause mortality and MACCE at 30 days did not differ. During 5-year follow-up (median 3.1 [range 0-7.2] years), the incidence of cardiac mortality (1.3% vs. 18.9%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 8.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.68-29.53; P <0.001), all-cause mortality (4.2% vs. 33.9%; aHR, 8.56; 95% CI, 3.41-21.45; P <0.001), and MACCE (25.1% vs. 47.0%; aHR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.54-3.63; P <0.001) were lower in the SAVR group than in the TAVR group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Isolated SAVR demonstrated better outcomes in low-risk AS patients. TAVR in this subset should be chosen carefully.</p>","PeriodicalId":93877,"journal":{"name":"Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11439598/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Midterm Clinical Outcomes after Isolated Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients with Aortic Stenosis.\",\"authors\":\"Kazuma Handa, Koichi Maeda, Kyongsun Pak, Kazuo Shimamura, Kizuku Yamashita, Ai Kawamura, Shigeru Miyagawa\",\"doi\":\"10.5761/atcs.oa.24-00123\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transfemoral (TF)-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-risk aortic stenosis (AS) patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 696 low-risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score <4%) AS patients underwent isolated SAVR or TF-TAVR at five centers. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 159 pairs were identified. Early and follow-up events, including cardiac mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE: all-cause mortality, heart failure admission, reoperation, prosthetic valve endocarditis, and stroke), were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline characteristics are similar between the matched groups. There were no 30-day cardiac mortalities in either group. All-cause mortality and MACCE at 30 days did not differ. During 5-year follow-up (median 3.1 [range 0-7.2] years), the incidence of cardiac mortality (1.3% vs. 18.9%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 8.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.68-29.53; P <0.001), all-cause mortality (4.2% vs. 33.9%; aHR, 8.56; 95% CI, 3.41-21.45; P <0.001), and MACCE (25.1% vs. 47.0%; aHR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.54-3.63; P <0.001) were lower in the SAVR group than in the TAVR group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Isolated SAVR demonstrated better outcomes in low-risk AS patients. TAVR in this subset should be chosen carefully.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93877,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11439598/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5761/atcs.oa.24-00123\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5761/atcs.oa.24-00123","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:本研究旨在比较低风险主动脉瓣狭窄(AS)患者单独手术主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)和经口(TF)-经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)的临床疗效:方法:共有696名低风险患者(胸外科医师协会评分结果)接受了TAVR和经胸主动脉瓣置换术:配对组的基线特征相似。两组均无 30 天心脏死亡病例。30 天内的全因死亡率和 MACCE 没有差异。在 5 年随访期间(中位 3.1 [range 0-7.2] 年),心脏死亡发生率(1.3% vs. 18.9%;调整后危险比 [aHR],8.89;95% 置信区间 [CI],2.68-29.53;P 结论:孤立 SAVR 对低风险 AS 患者的疗效更好。对这部分患者进行 TAVR 应慎重选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Midterm Clinical Outcomes after Isolated Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients with Aortic Stenosis.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transfemoral (TF)-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-risk aortic stenosis (AS) patients.

Methods: A total of 696 low-risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score <4%) AS patients underwent isolated SAVR or TF-TAVR at five centers. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 159 pairs were identified. Early and follow-up events, including cardiac mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE: all-cause mortality, heart failure admission, reoperation, prosthetic valve endocarditis, and stroke), were compared.

Results: Baseline characteristics are similar between the matched groups. There were no 30-day cardiac mortalities in either group. All-cause mortality and MACCE at 30 days did not differ. During 5-year follow-up (median 3.1 [range 0-7.2] years), the incidence of cardiac mortality (1.3% vs. 18.9%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 8.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.68-29.53; P <0.001), all-cause mortality (4.2% vs. 33.9%; aHR, 8.56; 95% CI, 3.41-21.45; P <0.001), and MACCE (25.1% vs. 47.0%; aHR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.54-3.63; P <0.001) were lower in the SAVR group than in the TAVR group.

Conclusions: Isolated SAVR demonstrated better outcomes in low-risk AS patients. TAVR in this subset should be chosen carefully.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Impact of Left Atrial Hemodynamics on the Development of Pulmonary Vein Stump Thrombus: Results of Early and Late Postoperative Studies. Surgical Outcomes of Stanford Type A Aortic Dissection in Jehovah's Witness Patients. Impact of Bilateral and Single Internal Thoracic Artery Bypass Grafting on Postoperative Reverse Remodeling in Patients with End-Stage Ischemic Cardiomyopathy. Lymph Node Metastasis and Recurrence Patterns in Clinical Stage IA Lower-Lobe Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Toward an Optimal Surgical Strategy for Superior Segment (S6) Tumors. Mid-Term Functional Recovery after Surgical Correction of ALCAPA: A 16-Year Single-Center Experience.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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