Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
1.
Am Heart J ; 161(6): 1114-24, 2011 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21641358

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a treatment option for high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. Previous reports focused on a single device or access site, whereas little is known of the combined use of different devices and access sites as selected by the heart team. The purpose of this study is to investigate clinical outcomes of TAVI using different devices and access sites. METHODS: A consecutive cohort of 200 patients underwent TAVI with the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving system (Medtronic Core Valve LLC, Irvine, CA; n = 130) or the Edwards SAPIEN valve (Edwards Lifesciences LLC, Irvine, CA; n = 70) implanted by either the transfemoral or transapical access route. RESULTS: Device success and procedure success were 99% and 95%, respectively, without differences between devices and access site. All-cause mortality was 7.5% at 30 days, with no differences between valve types or access sites. Using multivariable analysis, low body mass index (<20 kg/m(2)) (odds ratio [OR] 6.6, 95% CI 1.5-29.5) and previous stroke (OR 4.4, 95% CI 1.2-16.8) were independent risk factors for short-term mortality. The VARC-defined combined safety end point occurred in 18% of patients and was driven by major access site complications (8.0%), life-threatening bleeding (8.5%) or severe renal failure (4.5%). Transapical access emerged as independent predictor of adverse outcome for the Valve Academic Research Consortium-combined safety end point (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.5-7.1). CONCLUSION: A heart team-based selection of devices and access site among patients undergoing TAVI resulted in high device and procedural success. Low body mass index and history of previous stroke were independent predictors of mortality. Transapical access emerged as a risk factor for the Valve Academic Research Consortium-combined safety end point.


Asunto(s)
Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/cirugía , Implantación de Prótesis de Válvulas Cardíacas/métodos , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Algoritmos , Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/mortalidad , Índice de Masa Corporal , Tolerancia al Ejercicio , Femenino , Implantación de Prótesis de Válvulas Cardíacas/efectos adversos , Implantación de Prótesis de Válvulas Cardíacas/instrumentación , Hemodinámica , Humanos , Masculino , Accidente Cerebrovascular/epidemiología , Resultado del Tratamiento
2.
PLoS One ; 6(11): e27556, 2011.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22102909

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Reduced left ventricular function in patients with severe symptomatic valvular aortic stenosis is associated with impaired clinical outcome in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) has been shown non-inferior to SAVR in high-risk patients with respect to mortality and may result in faster left ventricular recovery. METHODS: We investigated clinical outcomes of high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing medical treatment (n = 71) or TAVI (n = 256) stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in a prospective single center registry. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (35%) among the medical cohort were found to have an LVEF≤30% (mean 26.7±4.1%) and 37 patients (14%) among the TAVI patients (mean 25.2±4.4%). Estimated peri-interventional risk as assessed by logistic EuroSCORE was significantly higher in patients with severely impaired LVEF as compared to patients with LVEF>30% (medical/TAVI 38.5±13.8%/40.6±16.4% versus medical/TAVI 22.5±10.8%/22.1±12.8%, p <0.001). In patients undergoing TAVI, there was no significant difference in the combined endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, major stroke, life-threatening bleeding, major access-site complications, valvular re-intervention, or renal failure at 30 days between the two groups (21.0% versus 27.0%, p = 0.40). After TAVI, patients with LVEF≤30% experienced a rapid improvement in LVEF (from 25±4% to 34±10% at discharge, p = 0.002) associated with improved NYHA functional class at 30 days (decrease ≥1 NYHA class in 95%). During long-term follow-up no difference in survival was observed in patients undergoing TAVI irrespective of baseline LVEF (p = 0.29), whereas there was a significantly higher mortality in medically treated patients with severely reduced LVEF (log rank p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: TAVI in patients with severely reduced left ventricular function may be performed safely and is associated with rapid recovery of systolic left ventricular function and heart failure symptoms.


Asunto(s)
Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/complicaciones , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/prevención & control , Implantación de Prótesis de Válvulas Cardíacas , Volumen Sistólico , Disfunción Ventricular Izquierda/prevención & control , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/mortalidad , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/etiología , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/mortalidad , Humanos , Masculino , Estudios Prospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Tasa de Supervivencia , Resultado del Tratamiento , Disfunción Ventricular Izquierda/etiología
3.
J Am Coll Cardiol ; 58(21): 2151-62, 2011 Nov 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22078420

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the role of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared with medical treatment (MT) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at increased surgical risk. BACKGROUND: Elderly patients with comorbidities are at considerable risk for SAVR. METHODS: Since July 2007, 442 patients with severe AS (age: 81.7 ± 6.0 years, mean logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation: 22.3 ± 14.6%) underwent treatment allocation to MT (n = 78), SAVR (n = 107), or TAVI (n = 257) on the basis of a comprehensive evaluation protocol as part of a prospective registry. RESULTS: Baseline clinical characteristics were similar among patients allocated to MT and TAVI, whereas patients allocated to SAVR were younger (p < 0.001) and had a lower predicted peri-operative risk (p < 0.001). Unadjusted rates of all-cause mortality at 30 months were lower for SAVR (22.4%) and TAVI (22.6%) compared with MT (61.5%, p < 0.001). Adjusted hazard ratios for death were 0.51 (95% confidence interval: 0.30 to 0.87) for SAVR compared with MT and 0.38 (95% confidence interval: 0.25 to 0.58) for TAVI compared with MT. Medical treatment (<0.001), older age (>80 years, p = 0.01), peripheral vascular disease (<0.001), and atrial fibrillation (p = 0.04) were significantly associated with all-cause mortality at 30 months in the multivariate analysis. At 1 year, more patients undergoing SAVR (92.3%) or TAVI (93.2%) had New York Heart Association functional class I/II as compared with patients with MT (70.8%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe AS with increased surgical risk, SAVR and TAVI improve survival and symptoms compared with MT. Clinical outcomes of TAVI and SAVR seem similar among carefully selected patients with severe symptomatic AS at increased risk.


Asunto(s)
Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/cirugía , Fibrilación Atrial/epidemiología , Prótesis Valvulares Cardíacas/efectos adversos , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/diagnóstico , Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/mortalidad , Fibrilación Atrial/etiología , Cateterismo Cardíaco/efectos adversos , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Mortalidad Hospitalaria/tendencias , Humanos , Masculino , Estudios Prospectivos , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Suiza/epidemiología , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA