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。

Q3 Medicine Journal of Heart Valve Disease Pub Date : 2017-07-01
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,&nbsp;Dagmar B Sötemann,&nbsp;Laura Kleinebrecht,&nbsp;Stefanie Keymel,&nbsp;Christian Jung,&nbsp;Tobias Zeus,&nbsp;Malte Kelm,&nbsp;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,&nbsp;Dagmar B Sötemann,&nbsp;Laura Kleinebrecht,&nbsp;Stefanie Keymel,&nbsp;Christian Jung,&nbsp;Tobias Zeus,&nbsp;Malte Kelm,&nbsp;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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

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
Journal of Heart Valve Disease
Journal of Heart Valve Disease 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
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).
期刊最新文献
ABO Blood Group: A Risk Factor for a Cardiovascular Disease in Adults in Morocco Anti-Hypertensive Medication in Geriatric Population with HFpEF Comparison of Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes in Patients with STEMI in Croatia and Kosovo Radiofrequency Ablation of Ventricular Arrhythmias on Bioprosthetic Valve, a Never Found Case Before An Interesting Case of Heart Failure in a Patient with Bicuspid Aortic Valve - Unveiling the Diagnosis of Amyloidosis
×
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