Verena Veulemans, Dagmar B Sötemann, Laura Kleinebrecht, Stefanie Keymel, Christian Jung, Tobias Zeus, Malte Kelm, Ralf Westenfeld
{"title":"经导管主动脉瓣植入术在高危/不能手术患者中的应用:可复位与不可复位的自膨胀瓣膜。","authors":"Verena Veulemans, Dagmar B Sötemann, Laura Kleinebrecht, Stefanie Keymel, Christian Jung, Tobias Zeus, Malte Kelm, Ralf Westenfeld","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aim of the study: </strong>Although next-generation cardiac prostheses have shown favorable results in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), these have mostly been documented in intermediate-risk patients. Whether this could be translated to high-risk patients is not known. Hence, the safety and clinical performance of the new, repositionable CoreValve Evolut R-System (ERS) was evaluated by comparison with a non-repositionable CoreValve-System (CVS), in 96 high-risk/inoperable (HRI) patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The primary safety end points were mortality and stroke, defined by VARC-2 criteria, at 30 days. Clinical performance end points were described by VARC-2 criteria, focusing on: (i) higher-grade atrioventricular conduction blocks with concomitant permanent pacemaker (PM) implantation; (ii) vascular complications (VCs); and (iii) aortic regurgitation (AR). The ERS and CVS patients underwent TAVI in equal proportions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this study, 63% of patients in the CVS group and 82% in the ERS group were defined as HRI. One in-hospital death was documented after 30 days. With regards to the HRI cohort, no difference in rates of PM use were noted (ERS 20% versus CVS 20%; p >0.9999). ERS patients were characterized by a higher prevalence of peripheral vascular disease (PVD) (46% versus 21%; p <0.05), but fewer VCs (13% versus 41%; p <0.01). Both cohorts showed low rates of moderate-to-severe paravalvular AR (ERS 6% versus CVS 5%; p = 0.8639). However, ERS seemed to offer a favorable hemodynamic performance, with a significantly improved AR index (26.3 versus 22.3; p <0.05). TAVI with the ERS was associated with a higher stroke rate (3% versus 0%; p = 0.1232) after necessary postdilatation processes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In comparison to last-generation CVS, the repositionable ERS is safe and effective in HRI patients. Similar rates of PM use were noted for each group. together with a favorable hemodynamic performance and fewer vascular complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":50184,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Heart Valve Disease","volume":"26 4","pages":"405-412"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in High-Risk/Inoperable Patients: Repositionable versus Non-Repositionable Self-Expanding Valve.\",\"authors\":\"Verena Veulemans, Dagmar B Sötemann, Laura Kleinebrecht, Stefanie Keymel, Christian Jung, Tobias Zeus, Malte Kelm, Ralf Westenfeld\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aim of the study: </strong>Although next-generation cardiac prostheses have shown favorable results in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), these have mostly been documented in intermediate-risk patients. Whether this could be translated to high-risk patients is not known. Hence, the safety and clinical performance of the new, repositionable CoreValve Evolut R-System (ERS) was evaluated by comparison with a non-repositionable CoreValve-System (CVS), in 96 high-risk/inoperable (HRI) patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The primary safety end points were mortality and stroke, defined by VARC-2 criteria, at 30 days. Clinical performance end points were described by VARC-2 criteria, focusing on: (i) higher-grade atrioventricular conduction blocks with concomitant permanent pacemaker (PM) implantation; (ii) vascular complications (VCs); and (iii) aortic regurgitation (AR). The ERS and CVS patients underwent TAVI in equal proportions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this study, 63% of patients in the CVS group and 82% in the ERS group were defined as HRI. One in-hospital death was documented after 30 days. With regards to the HRI cohort, no difference in rates of PM use were noted (ERS 20% versus CVS 20%; p >0.9999). ERS patients were characterized by a higher prevalence of peripheral vascular disease (PVD) (46% versus 21%; p <0.05), but fewer VCs (13% versus 41%; p <0.01). Both cohorts showed low rates of moderate-to-severe paravalvular AR (ERS 6% versus CVS 5%; p = 0.8639). However, ERS seemed to offer a favorable hemodynamic performance, with a significantly improved AR index (26.3 versus 22.3; p <0.05). TAVI with the ERS was associated with a higher stroke rate (3% versus 0%; p = 0.1232) after necessary postdilatation processes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In comparison to last-generation CVS, the repositionable ERS is safe and effective in HRI patients. Similar rates of PM use were noted for each group. together with a favorable hemodynamic performance and fewer vascular complications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50184,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Heart Valve Disease\",\"volume\":\"26 4\",\"pages\":\"405-412\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Heart Valve Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Heart Valve Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
研究背景和目的:虽然下一代心脏假体在经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)中显示出良好的效果,但这些主要是在中危患者中记录的。这是否可以转化为高危患者尚不清楚。因此,在96例高风险/不能手术(HRI)患者中,通过与不可重新定位的CoreValve- system (CVS)进行比较,评估了新型可重新定位CoreValve Evolut R-System (ERS)的安全性和临床性能。方法:主要安全终点是死亡率和卒中,由VARC-2标准定义,在30天。临床表现终点由VARC-2标准描述,重点是:(i)高级别房室传导阻滞并同时植入永久性起搏器(PM);血管并发症(VCs);(iii)主动脉反流(AR)。ERS和CVS患者接受TAVI的比例相同。结果:本研究中,CVS组63%的患者和ERS组82%的患者被定义为HRI。30天后有一例住院死亡记录。在HRI队列中,PM使用率没有差异(ERS 20% vs CVS 20%;p > 0.9999)。ERS患者的特点是外周血管疾病(PVD)患病率较高(46% vs 21%;结论:与上一代CVS相比,可定位ERS在HRI患者中是安全有效的。各组的PM使用率相似。同时具有良好的血流动力学性能和较少的血管并发症。
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in High-Risk/Inoperable Patients: Repositionable versus Non-Repositionable Self-Expanding Valve.
Background and aim of the study: Although next-generation cardiac prostheses have shown favorable results in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), these have mostly been documented in intermediate-risk patients. Whether this could be translated to high-risk patients is not known. Hence, the safety and clinical performance of the new, repositionable CoreValve Evolut R-System (ERS) was evaluated by comparison with a non-repositionable CoreValve-System (CVS), in 96 high-risk/inoperable (HRI) patients.
Methods: The primary safety end points were mortality and stroke, defined by VARC-2 criteria, at 30 days. Clinical performance end points were described by VARC-2 criteria, focusing on: (i) higher-grade atrioventricular conduction blocks with concomitant permanent pacemaker (PM) implantation; (ii) vascular complications (VCs); and (iii) aortic regurgitation (AR). The ERS and CVS patients underwent TAVI in equal proportions.
Results: In this study, 63% of patients in the CVS group and 82% in the ERS group were defined as HRI. One in-hospital death was documented after 30 days. With regards to the HRI cohort, no difference in rates of PM use were noted (ERS 20% versus CVS 20%; p >0.9999). ERS patients were characterized by a higher prevalence of peripheral vascular disease (PVD) (46% versus 21%; p <0.05), but fewer VCs (13% versus 41%; p <0.01). Both cohorts showed low rates of moderate-to-severe paravalvular AR (ERS 6% versus CVS 5%; p = 0.8639). However, ERS seemed to offer a favorable hemodynamic performance, with a significantly improved AR index (26.3 versus 22.3; p <0.05). TAVI with the ERS was associated with a higher stroke rate (3% versus 0%; p = 0.1232) after necessary postdilatation processes.
Conclusions: In comparison to last-generation CVS, the repositionable ERS is safe and effective in HRI patients. Similar rates of PM use were noted for each group. together with a favorable hemodynamic performance and fewer vascular complications.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Heart Valve Disease (ISSN 0966-8519) is the official journal of The Society for Heart Valve Disease. It is indexed/abstracted by Index Medicus, Medline, Medlar, PubMed, Science Citation Index, Scisearch, Research Alert, Biomedical Products, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine. It is issued bi-monthly in one indexed volume by ICR Publishers Ltd., Crispin House, 12A South Approach, Moor Park, Northwood HA6 2ET, United Kingdom. This paper meets the requirements of ANSI standard Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper).