Literature DB >> 27005980

No clinical effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate- and low-risk patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at mid-term follow-up: an analysis from the NOTION trial.

Hans Gustav Hørsted Thyregod1, Daniel Andreas Steinbrüchel2, Nikolaj Ihlemann3, Thuc Anh Ngo3, Henrik Nissen4, Bo Juel Kjeldsen5, Yanping Chang6, Peter Bo Hansen7, Peter Skov Olsen2, Lars Søndergaard3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic valve stenosis (AVS) is common, but less common after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients considered at high risk for death after surgery. The objectives of this study were to determine incidence and clinical effect of PPM after SAVR and TAVR in a primarily low-risk patient group.
METHODS: Patients 70 years or older with severe isolated AVS, regardless of predicted operative mortality risk, were consecutively randomized 1:1 to TAVR using a self-expandable bioprosthesis (n = 145) or SAVR (n = 135). Post-procedure PPM was graded after 3 months as follows: Not present-mild, if indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) >0.85 cm2/m2, moderate, if 0.65 cm2/m2 < iEOA ≤ 0.85 cm2/m2 and severe, if iEOA ≤0.65 cm2/m2. Outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE, e.g. composite rate of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction or valve reintervention), cardiac-related hospitalizations and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class after 2 years.
RESULTS: The incidence and the severity of PPM were significantly lower after TAVR compared with SAVR (severe, moderate, none-mild 14.0, 35.5, 50.4 vs 33.9, 36.7, 29.4%; P<0.001). PPM resulted in similar higher mean valve gradients at 3 months for both groups. Baseline characteristics related to severe PPM were younger age, absence of diabetes mellitus, lower mortality-risk score for TAVR, and younger age and higher body mass index for SAVR. At 2 years, there were numerical but no statistically significant differences between both TAVR and SAVR patients with severe and no severe PPM for MACCE (0.0 vs 12.8% for TAVR; P = 0.13, and 13.5 vs 7.0% for SAVR; P = 0.27), number of cardiac-related hospitalizations (mean ± standard deviation 0.4 ± 0.6 vs 0.6 ± 0.8; P = 0.23, and 0.4 ± 0.8 vs 0.5 ± 0.9; P = 0.70) and NYHA functional class (Class I/II/III/IV: 64.7/29.4/5.9/0.0 vs 62.1/34.7/3.2/0.0%, respectively; P = 0.91, and 71.4/25.7/2.9/0.0 vs 72.9/22.9/4.3/0.0%, respectively; P = 0.92).
CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of PPM was lower and less severe after TAVR compared with SAVR in intermediate- and low-risk patients with severe AVS. There were no significant differences in MACCE, cardiac-related hospitalizations or NYHA class after 2 years for patients with versus those without severe PPM.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aortic valve stenosis; Clinical outcomes; Heart valve prosthesis; Prosthesis-patient mismatch

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27005980     DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezw095

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg        ISSN: 1010-7940            Impact factor:   4.191


  7 in total

Review 1.  On the Mechanics of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Authors:  Lakshmi P Dasi; Hoda Hatoum; Arash Kheradvar; Ramin Zareian; S Hamed Alavi; Wei Sun; Caitlin Martin; Thuy Pham; Qian Wang; Prem A Midha; Vrishank Raghav; Ajit P Yoganathan
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2016-11-21       Impact factor: 3.934

2.  Low Incidence of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Following Extremely Small Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with 20-mm Sapien 3.

Authors:  Kazue Okajima; Ikki Komatsu; Todd B Seto
Journal:  Int J Angiol       Date:  2021-08-25

3.  Outcomes of surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the octogenarians-surgery still the gold standard?

Authors:  Sameer A Hirji; Fernando Ramirez-Del Val; Ahmed A Kolkailah; Julius I Ejiofor; Siobhan McGurk; Ritam Chowdhury; Jiyae Lee; Pinak B Shah; Piotr S Sobieszczyk; Sary F Aranki; Marc P Pelletier; Prem S Shekar; Tsuyoshi Kaneko
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2017-09

4.  Safety, effectiveness and haemodynamic performance of a new stented aortic valve bioprosthesis.

Authors:  Robert J M Klautz; A Pieter Kappetein; Rüdiger Lange; Francois Dagenais; Louis Labrousse; Vinayak Bapat; Michael Moront; Martin Misfeld; Cathy Zeng; Joseph F Sabik Iii
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 4.191

5.  Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on 1-Year Outcomes after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Meta-analysis of 71,106 Patients.

Authors:  Michel Pompeu Barros Oliveira Sá; Luiz Rafael Pereira Cavalcanti; Felipe Augusto Santos Sarargiotto; Álvaro Monteiro Perazzo; Sérgio da Costa Rayol; Roberto Gouveia Silva Diniz; Frederico Browne Correia Araújo Sá; Alexandre Motta Menezes; Ricardo Carvalho Lima
Journal:  Braz J Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2019-06-01

6.  Incidence, Predictors and Outcome of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yan-Biao Liao; Yi-Jian Li; Li Jun-Li; Zhen-Gang Zhao; Xin Wei; Jiay-Yu Tsauo; Tian-Yuan Xiong; Yuan-Ning Xu; Yuan Feng; Mao Chen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-11-08       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Incidence, predictors, and outcome of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Shixin He; Zhenfei Fang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 1.817

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.