Literature DB >> 26993427

Early and Midterm Outcome of Propensity-Matched Intermediate-Risk Patients Aged ≥80 Years With Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (from the Italian Multicenter OBSERVANT Study).

Chiara Fraccaro1, Giuseppe Tarantini2, Stefano Rosato3, Paola Tellaroli4, Paola D'Errigo3, Corrado Tamburino5, Francesco Onorati6, Marco Ranucci7, Marco Barbanti5, Claudio Grossi8, Gennaro Santoro9, Francesco Santini10, Remo Daniel Covello11, Danilo Fusco12, Fulvia Seccareccia3.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze procedural and postprocedural outcomes of patients aged ≥80 years treated by transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) as enrolled in the OBservational Study of Effectiveness of SAVR-TAVR procedures for severe Aortic steNosis Treatment (OBSERVANT) Study. TAVI is offered to patients with aortic stenosis judged inoperable or at high surgical risk. Nevertheless, it is common clinical practice to treat elderly (≥80 years) patients by TAVI regardless of surgical risk for traditional SAVR. OBSERVANT is a multicenter, observational, prospective cohort study that enrolled patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who underwent SAVR or TAVI from December 2010 to June 2012 in 93 Italian participating hospitals. Information on demographic characteristics, health status before intervention, therapeutic approach, and intraprocedural and 30-day outcomes was collected. An administrative follow-up was set up to collect data on midterm to long-term outcomes. We reviewed baseline and procedural data of patients aged ≥80 years, looking for different early and late outcome after TAVI or SAVR. Patients treated by TAVI were sicker than SAVR because of higher rate of co-morbidities, advanced illness, frailty, and Logistic EuroSCORE. After propensity matching, early and midterm mortality were comparable between the 2 groups. However, patients treated by TAVI had higher rate of vascular complications (6.0% vs 0.5%; p <0.0001), permanent pacemaker implantation (13.4% vs 3.7%; p <0.0001), and paravalvular leak (8.9% vs 2.4%; p <0.0001). Patients who underwent SAVR had more frequent bleedings needing transfusion (63.2% vs 34.5%; p <0.0001) and acute kidney injury (9.6% vs 3.9%; p = 0.0010). In conclusion, patients aged ≥80 years treated by TAVI or SAVR had similar early and midterm mortality.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26993427     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.02.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  8 in total

1.  Transcatheter aortic valve implantation at institutions without cardiovascular surgery departments: many questions still linger before a paradigm shift.

Authors:  Chiara Fraccaro; Giuseppe Tarantini
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 2.  Transcatheter vs surgical aortic-valve replacement in low- to intermediate-surgical-risk candidates: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Safi U Khan; Ahmad N Lone; Muhammad A Saleem; Edo Kaluski
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2017-11-23       Impact factor: 2.882

3.  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

4.  Balloon expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation via the transfemoral route with or without pre-dilation of the aortic valve - rationale and design of a multicentre registry (EASE-IT TF).

Authors:  Christian Butter; Peter Bramlage; Tanja Rudolph; Claudius Jacobshagen; Jürgen Rothe; Hendrik Treede; Sebastian Kerber; Derk Frank; Lenka Seilerova; Gerhard Schymik
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2016-11-15       Impact factor: 2.298

5.  Meta-Analysis Comparing Renal Outcomes after Transcatheter versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

Authors:  Kuldeep Shah; Zakeih Chaker; Tatiana Busu; Rishita Shah; Mohammed Osman; Fahad Alqahtani; Mohamad Alkhouli
Journal:  J Interv Cardiol       Date:  2019-04-24       Impact factor: 2.279

6.  Comparing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (AVR) With Surgical AVR in Lower Risk Patients: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

Authors:  Muhammad Shayan Khan; Tanveer Mir; Waqas Ullah; Zain Ali; Owais Idris; Ghazal Khan; Mamoon Ur Rashid; Mobasser Mehmood; Syed Sohail Ali
Journal:  Cardiol Res       Date:  2020-05-03

7.  Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Previous Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Yi-Ming Li; Jia-Yu Tsauo; Kai-Yu Jia; Yan-Biao Liao; Fan Xia; Zheng-Gang Zhao; Mao Chen; Yong Peng
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2021-02-10

8.  The noninferiority of transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared to surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic disease: Evidence based on 16 randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Peng-Ying Zhao; Yong-Hong Wang; Rui-Sheng Liu; Ji-Hai Zhu; Jian-Ying Wu; Bing Song
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-07-16       Impact factor: 1.817

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.