Literature DB >> 22054662

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement: a propensity score analysis in patients at high surgical risk.

Lenard Conradi1, Moritz Seiffert, Hendrik Treede, Miriam Silaschi, Stephan Baldus, Johannes Schirmer, Jan-Felix Kersten, Thomas Meinertz, Hermann Reichenspurner.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has recently been advocated to decrease perioperative risk in high-risk patients. In this propensity-score analysis we compared outcomes after TAVI to those after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR).
METHODS: From June 2009 through June 2010, 82 consecutive patients underwent TAVI via a transapical (n = 60) or transfemoral (n = 22) approach using the Edwards Sapien prosthesis (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, Calif). Mean patient age was 81.9 ± 5.2 years, 64.6% were women. Logistic EuroSCORE was 23.6% ± 1.4% and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 8.7% ± 1.3%. A group of 82 patients after surgical AVR was retrieved from our database, yielding a control group that was matched to the cases with respect to baseline demographics and typical risk factors.
RESULTS: Overall mortality did not differ significantly between TAVI and AVR groups at 30 days (7.3% vs 8.6%), 90 days (13.6% vs 11.1%), or 180 days (17.8% vs 16.9%; P = .889). Conversion to surgery was necessary in 2 (2.4%) TAVI cases. Perioperative stroke occurred in 2 (2.4%) cases per group. Pacemakers were implanted for new-onset heart block in 3.7% and 2.4% in the TAVI and AVR groups, respectively (P = 1.0). TAVI resulted in shorter operative times (P < .001), shorter ventilation times (P < .001), and shorter length of stay in the intensive care unit (P = .008). Duration of hospital stay, however, was not significantly different (P = .11).
CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, mortality rates are similar after both types of procedure. Patients receiving TAVI benefit from faster postoperative recovery. Until more clinical data become available, the optimal procedure has to be determined for each patient according to individual risk factors.
Copyright © 2012 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22054662     DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.08.047

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 0022-5223            Impact factor:   5.209


  13 in total

1.  Postoperative morbidity after surgical aortic valve replacement or transcatheter valve implantation: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Akshay Shah; Helen Brambley; Miles Curtis; Michael Mullen; Nicola Delahunty; John Yap; Andrew Smith; Hugh Montgomery; Julie Sanders
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement and medical treatment : Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized trials.

Authors:  A Ak; I Porokhovnikov; F Kuethe; P C Schulze; M Noutsias; P Schlattmann
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2017-04-27       Impact factor: 1.443

Review 3.  Contemporary strategy for aortic valve stenosis in octogenarians.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Tsukui; Kenji Yamazaki
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2013-07-14       Impact factor: 2.549

Review 4.  Transcatheter valve-in-valve therapies: patient selection, prosthesis assessment and selection, results, and future directions.

Authors:  Manuel Wilbring; Konstantin Alexiou; Sems-Malte Tugtekin; Bjoern Sill; Gregor Simonis; Klaus Matschke; Utz Kappert
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 2.931

5.  Meta-Analysis Comparing the Frequency of Stroke After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

Authors:  Kuldeep Shah; Zakeih Chaker; Tatiana Busu; Vinay Badhwar; Fahad Alqahtani; Muhammad Alvi; Amelia Adcock; Mohamad Alkhouli
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 2.778

6.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Christopher Cao; Su C Ang; Praveen Indraratna; Con Manganas; Paul Bannon; Deborah Black; David Tian; Tristan D Yan
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2013-01

7.  Transcatheter, sutureless and conventional aortic-valve replacement: a network meta-analysis of 16,432 patients.

Authors:  Declan Lloyd; Jessica G Y Luc; Ben Elias Indja; Vannessa Leung; Nelson Wang; Kevin Phan
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 2.895

8.  Prognostic utility of biomarkers in predicting of one-year outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis treated with transcatheter or surgical aortic valve implantation.

Authors:  Jiri Parenica; Petr Nemec; Josef Tomandl; Jiri Ondrasek; Monika Pavkova-Goldbergova; Martin Tretina; Jiri Jarkovsky; Simona Littnerova; Martin Poloczek; Petr Pokorny; Jindrich Spinar; Zdenka Cermakova; Roman Miklik; Petr Malik; Ondrej Pes; Jolana Lipkova; Marie Tomandlova; Petr Kala
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-12-14       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Patient experiences of recovery after heart valve replacement: suffering weakness, struggling to resume normality.

Authors:  Selina Kikkenborg Berg; Ann-Dorthe Zwisler; Birthe D Pedersen; Katrine Haase; Kirstine Lærum Sibilitz
Journal:  BMC Nurs       Date:  2013-09-26

Review 10.  Advanced age and the clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Authors:  Osama Alsara; Ahmad Alsarah; Heather Laird-Fick
Journal:  J Geriatr Cardiol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.327

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.