AIMS: To assess the results of percutaneous aortic balloon valvuloplasty (PABV) as a potential bridge to further intervention in patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-three patients referred for TAVI were studied: 41 (16%) were considered transiently unsuitable for either aortic valve replacement (AVR) or TAVI and underwent PABV as a bridge to intervention. In the others, primary TAVI or AVR was performed in 140 cases, and medical therapy alone in 72.The overall population was at high risk: 82 ± 8 years, logistic EuroSCORE: 28 ± 16%, STS score: 16 ± 10%. There was no PABV-related death. Twenty-three patients underwent secondary TAVI (n=19) or AVR (n=4), 18 did not undergo further intervention. One and two year survival rates were respectively 94 ± 5% and 85 ± 10% after bridge PABV, and 33 ± 11 and 6 ± 5% after PABV alone. There was no difference in survival between the primary TAVI / AVR and bridge PABV (p=0.08), and between medical treatment and PABV alone (p=0.36). CONCLUSION: In high-risk patients with aortic stenosis and temporary contraindications to AVR or TAVI, PABV may be used as a bridge to intervention with good mid-term outcomes. In others, PABV can be safely used but is associated with a poor outcome.
AIMS: To assess the results of percutaneous aortic balloon valvuloplasty (PABV) as a potential bridge to further intervention in patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-three patients referred for TAVI were studied: 41 (16%) were considered transiently unsuitable for either aortic valve replacement (AVR) or TAVI and underwent PABV as a bridge to intervention. In the others, primary TAVI or AVR was performed in 140 cases, and medical therapy alone in 72.The overall population was at high risk: 82 ± 8 years, logistic EuroSCORE: 28 ± 16%, STS score: 16 ± 10%. There was no PABV-related death. Twenty-three patients underwent secondary TAVI (n=19) or AVR (n=4), 18 did not undergo further intervention. One and two year survival rates were respectively 94 ± 5% and 85 ± 10% after bridge PABV, and 33 ± 11 and 6 ± 5% after PABV alone. There was no difference in survival between the primary TAVI / AVR and bridge PABV (p=0.08), and between medical treatment and PABV alone (p=0.36). CONCLUSION: In high-risk patients with aortic stenosis and temporary contraindications to AVR or TAVI, PABV may be used as a bridge to intervention with good mid-term outcomes. In others, PABV can be safely used but is associated with a poor outcome.
Authors: Lenard Conradi; Andreas Schaefer; Moritz Seiffert; Johannes Schirmer; Ulrich Schaefer; Gerhard Schön; Stefan Blankenberg; Hermann Reichenspurner; Hendrik Treede; Patrick Diemert Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2015-03-01 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: V Kamperidis; S Hadjimiltiades; S A Mouratoglou; A Ziakas; G Sianos; A Sarafidou; I Ventoulis; G Kazinakis; G Giannakoulas; G K Efthimiadis; G Parcharidis; H Karvounis Journal: Herz Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 1.443
Authors: Glen P Martin; Matthew Sperrin; Rodrigo Bagur; Mark A de Belder; Iain Buchan; Mark Gunning; Peter F Ludman; Mamas A Mamas Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-02-18 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Jacek Wacławski; Krzysztof Wilczek; Damian Pres; Adam Krajewski; Lech Poloński; Marian Zembala; Mariusz Gąsior Journal: Kardiochir Torakochirurgia Pol Date: 2015-03-31
Authors: Anna Olasińska-Wiśniewska; Olga Trojnarska; Marek Grygier; Maciej Lesiak; Stefan Grajek Journal: Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej Date: 2013-03-21 Impact factor: 1.426