P. Normandin , A. Houeijeh , J.B. Baudelet , O. Domanskii , A. Delarue , S. Bichali , F. Juthier , F. Godart
{"title":"外科或经导管肺动脉瓣置换术，如何选择？","authors":"P. Normandin , A. Houeijeh , J.B. Baudelet , O. Domanskii , A. Delarue , S. Bichali , F. Juthier , F. Godart","doi":"10.1016/j.acvdsp.2023.07.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Pulmonary valve replacement<span> (PVR) is indicated for right ventricle outflow tract (RVOT) dysfunction. The choice between the transcatheter PVR (TPVR) and the surgical PVR (SPVR) is debated.</span></p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>We aimed to compare the TPVR to the SPVR, considered previously as the gold standard, to determine the best choice for each patient.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A retrospective observational study was conducted in Lille University hospital. All patients who had PVR between January 2012 and May 2021 were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of valve failure defined as the occurrence of death, endocarditis or the need for secondary intervention.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In total, 273 patients were included (100 patients with TPVR (36.6%) and 173 with SPVR (63.4%)). Age at the intervention was 25.1<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->14.8 years for TPVR and 34.9<!--> <!-->±<!--> <span>15.7 years for SPVR. The outlet malformation was the main pathology (65% of TPVR and 61.3% of SPVR) followed by the Ross intervention (18% of TPVR and 11.6% of SPVR). The mean duration of the follow-up was 3.6</span> <!-->±<!--> <!-->2,8 years for TPVR and 3.9<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->0,9 years for SPVR. Valve diameters were higher in the SPVR group (9%<!--> <!--><<!--> <!-->20<!--> <!-->mm – 44% 20–22<!--> <!-->mm and 47%<!--> <!-->><!--> <!-->22<!--> <!-->mm for TPVR; and 3.6%<!--> <!--><<!--> <!-->22<!--> <!-->mm and 96,4%<!--> <!-->><!--> <!-->22<!--> <!-->mm for SPVR) and post-intervention transvalvular gradient was higher in the TPVR group.</p><p>The primary outcome was not significantly different in TPVR than in SPVR (16.33% vs. 8.7% respectively, <em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.846), and the freedom from primary outcome at 9 years of follow up was 57% in TPVR and 84% in SPVR (<span>Figure 1</span>), after adjusting for predefined confounders (age at the intervention, size of the valve, and disease).</p><p>The risks factors for primary outcome were number of previous surgeries (<em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.0190) and small size of the valve (threshold<!--> <!--><<!--> <!-->22<!--> <!-->mm, hazard ratio 0.27, <em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.0363).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion/Perspectives</h3><p>The choice between TPVR and SPVR should be individualized based on each patient, their risk factors and the size of their right ventricle outflow tract. A larger size of the valve (><!--> <!-->22<!--> <span>mm if possible) may be preferable mainly in patients with several previous surgeries.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":8140,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases Supplements","volume":"15 4","pages":"Pages 281-282"},"PeriodicalIF":18.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surgical or transcatheter pulmonary valve replacement, how to choose ?\",\"authors\":\"P. Normandin , A. Houeijeh , J.B. Baudelet , O. Domanskii , A. Delarue , S. Bichali , F. Juthier , F. Godart\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.acvdsp.2023.07.018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Pulmonary valve replacement<span> (PVR) is indicated for right ventricle outflow tract (RVOT) dysfunction. The choice between the transcatheter PVR (TPVR) and the surgical PVR (SPVR) is debated.</span></p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>We aimed to compare the TPVR to the SPVR, considered previously as the gold standard, to determine the best choice for each patient.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A retrospective observational study was conducted in Lille University hospital. All patients who had PVR between January 2012 and May 2021 were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of valve failure defined as the occurrence of death, endocarditis or the need for secondary intervention.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In total, 273 patients were included (100 patients with TPVR (36.6%) and 173 with SPVR (63.4%)). Age at the intervention was 25.1<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->14.8 years for TPVR and 34.9<!--> <!-->±<!--> <span>15.7 years for SPVR. The outlet malformation was the main pathology (65% of TPVR and 61.3% of SPVR) followed by the Ross intervention (18% of TPVR and 11.6% of SPVR). The mean duration of the follow-up was 3.6</span> <!-->±<!--> <!-->2,8 years for TPVR and 3.9<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->0,9 years for SPVR. Valve diameters were higher in the SPVR group (9%<!--> <!--><<!--> <!-->20<!--> <!-->mm – 44% 20–22<!--> <!-->mm and 47%<!--> <!-->><!--> <!-->22<!--> <!-->mm for TPVR; and 3.6%<!--> <!--><<!--> <!-->22<!--> <!-->mm and 96,4%<!--> <!-->><!--> <!-->22<!--> <!-->mm for SPVR) and post-intervention transvalvular gradient was higher in the TPVR group.</p><p>The primary outcome was not significantly different in TPVR than in SPVR (16.33% vs. 8.7% respectively, <em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.846), and the freedom from primary outcome at 9 years of follow up was 57% in TPVR and 84% in SPVR (<span>Figure 1</span>), after adjusting for predefined confounders (age at the intervention, size of the valve, and disease).</p><p>The risks factors for primary outcome were number of previous surgeries (<em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.0190) and small size of the valve (threshold<!--> <!--><<!--> <!-->22<!--> <!-->mm, hazard ratio 0.27, <em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.0363).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion/Perspectives</h3><p>The choice between TPVR and SPVR should be individualized based on each patient, their risk factors and the size of their right ventricle outflow tract. A larger size of the valve (><!--> <!-->22<!--> <span>mm if possible) may be preferable mainly in patients with several previous surgeries.</span></p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8140,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases Supplements\",\"volume\":\"15 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 281-282\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":18.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases Supplements\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878648023002392\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases Supplements","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878648023002392","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Surgical or transcatheter pulmonary valve replacement, how to choose ?
Introduction
Pulmonary valve replacement (PVR) is indicated for right ventricle outflow tract (RVOT) dysfunction. The choice between the transcatheter PVR (TPVR) and the surgical PVR (SPVR) is debated.
Objective
We aimed to compare the TPVR to the SPVR, considered previously as the gold standard, to determine the best choice for each patient.
Methods
A retrospective observational study was conducted in Lille University hospital. All patients who had PVR between January 2012 and May 2021 were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of valve failure defined as the occurrence of death, endocarditis or the need for secondary intervention.
Results
In total, 273 patients were included (100 patients with TPVR (36.6%) and 173 with SPVR (63.4%)). Age at the intervention was 25.1 ± 14.8 years for TPVR and 34.9 ± 15.7 years for SPVR. The outlet malformation was the main pathology (65% of TPVR and 61.3% of SPVR) followed by the Ross intervention (18% of TPVR and 11.6% of SPVR). The mean duration of the follow-up was 3.6 ± 2,8 years for TPVR and 3.9 ± 0,9 years for SPVR. Valve diameters were higher in the SPVR group (9% < 20 mm – 44% 20–22 mm and 47% > 22 mm for TPVR; and 3.6% < 22 mm and 96,4% > 22 mm for SPVR) and post-intervention transvalvular gradient was higher in the TPVR group.
The primary outcome was not significantly different in TPVR than in SPVR (16.33% vs. 8.7% respectively, P = 0.846), and the freedom from primary outcome at 9 years of follow up was 57% in TPVR and 84% in SPVR (Figure 1), after adjusting for predefined confounders (age at the intervention, size of the valve, and disease).
The risks factors for primary outcome were number of previous surgeries (P = 0.0190) and small size of the valve (threshold < 22 mm, hazard ratio 0.27, P = 0.0363).
Conclusion/Perspectives
The choice between TPVR and SPVR should be individualized based on each patient, their risk factors and the size of their right ventricle outflow tract. A larger size of the valve (> 22 mm if possible) may be preferable mainly in patients with several previous surgeries.
期刊介绍：
Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases Supplements is the official journal of the French Society of Cardiology. The journal publishes original peer-reviewed clinical and research articles, epidemiological studies, new methodological clinical approaches, review articles, editorials, and Images in cardiovascular medicine. The topics covered include coronary artery and valve diseases, interventional and pediatric cardiology, cardiovascular surgery, cardiomyopathy and heart failure, arrhythmias and stimulation, cardiovascular imaging, vascular medicine and hypertension, epidemiology and risk factors, and large multicenter studies. Additionally, Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases also publishes abstracts of papers presented at the annual sessions of the Journées Européennes de la Société Française de Cardiologie and the guidelines edited by the French Society of Cardiology.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
