Literature DB >> 22818966

Conventional aortic valve replacement in transcatheter aortic valve implantation candidates: a 5-year experience.

Sreekumar Subramanian1, Ardawan J Rastan, David Holzhey, Martin Haensig, Joerg Kempfert, Michael A Borger, Thomas Walther, Friedrich W Mohr.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient selection for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains highly controversial. Some screened patients subsequently undergo conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) because they are unsuitable TAVI candidates. This study examined the indications and outcomes for these patients, thereby determining the efficacy of the screening process.
METHODS: Between January 2006 and December 2010, 79 consecutive patients (49% men), aged older than 75 years with high surgical risk, were screened for TAVI, but subsequently underwent conventional AVR through a partial or complete sternotomy. The indications, demographics, and outcomes of this cohort were studied.
RESULTS: Mean age was 80.4±3.6 years. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 0.55±0.16, and the mean logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation was 13%±7%. Of the 79 patients, 6 (7.6%) had prior cardiac surgical procedures. Indications for TAVI denial after patient evaluations were a large annulus in 31 (39%), acceptable risk profile for AVR in 24 (30%), need for urgent operation in 11 (14%), and concomitant cardiovascular pathology in 5 (6%). Mean cross-clamp time was 55±14 minutes, and cardiopulmonary bypass time was 81±21 minutes. Concomitant procedures included a Maze in 12 patients (15%). Postoperative morbidity included permanent stroke in 2 (2.5%), respiratory failure in 9 (11%), and pacemaker implantation in 2 (2.5%). Hospital mortality was 1.3% (1 of 79). Cumulative survival at 6, 12, and 36 months was 88.5%, 87.1% and 72.7%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Our existing patient evaluation process accurately defines an acceptable risk cohort for conventional AVR. The late mortality rate reflects the advanced age and comorbidities of this cohort. The data suggest that overzealous widening of TAVI inclusion criteria may be inappropriate.
Copyright © 2012 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22818966     DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.04.068

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg        ISSN: 0003-4975            Impact factor:   4.330


  8 in total

1.  The impact of transcatheter aortic valve implantation on patients' profiles and outcomes of aortic valve surgery programmes: a multi-institutional appraisal.

Authors:  Augusto D'Onofrio; Ottavio R Alfieri; Micaela Cioni; Francesco Alamanni; Melissa Fusari; Vincenzo Tarzia; Giulio Rizzoli; Gino Gerosa
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2013-01-29

Review 2.  Perceval Sutureless Valve - are Sutureless Valves Here?

Authors:  Rahul Chandola; Kevin Teoh; Abdelsalam Elhenawy; George Christakis
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rev       Date:  2015

3.  Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: from fantasy to reality.

Authors:  Kasra Shaikhrezai; Billy McWilliams; Edward T Brackenbury; Sai Prasad; Tristan D Yan; Renzo Pessotto; Vipin Zamvar; Geoffrey Berg
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2014-03-07       Impact factor: 1.637

4.  Comparison of Early Clinical Results of Transcatheter versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Symptomatic High Risk Severe Aortic Stenosis Patients.

Authors:  Woo Sik Yu; Byung-Chul Chang; Hyun Chel Joo; Young-Guk Ko; Sak Lee
Journal:  Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2013-10-04

5.  Minimally Invasive Versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement: A Propensity-Matched Study From the UK National Data.

Authors:  Rizwan Q Attia; Graeme L Hickey; Stuart W Grant; Ben Bridgewater; James C Roxburgh; Pankaj Kumar; Paul Ridley; Moninder Bhabra; Russell W J Millner; Thanos Athanasiou; Roberto Casula; Andrew Chukwuemka; Thasee Pillay; Christopher P Young
Journal:  Innovations (Phila)       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb

6.  Comparison of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with other approaches to treat aortic valve stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Gernot Wagner; Sabine Steiner; Gerald Gartlehner; Henrike Arfsten; Brigitte Wildner; Harald Mayr; Deddo Moertl
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2019-02-05

7.  Minimally-invasive versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: systematic review with meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies.

Authors:  Mathew P Doyle; Kei Woldendorp; Martin Ng; Michael P Vallely; Michael K Wilson; Tristan D Yan; Paul G Bannon
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 3.005

8.  Prognosis after surgical replacement with a bioprosthetic aortic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: systematic review of observational studies.

Authors:  Farid Foroutan; Gordon H Guyatt; Kathleen O'Brien; Eva Bain; Madeleine Stein; Sai Bhagra; Daegan Sit; Rakhshan Kamran; Yaping Chang; Tahira Devji; Hassan Mir; Veena Manja; Toni Schofield; Reed A Siemieniuk; Thomas Agoritsas; Rodrigo Bagur; Catherine M Otto; Per O Vandvik
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-09-28
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.