RESUMEN
Although transcatheter aortic valve implantation has emerged as a very attractive treatment option for severe aortic valve disease, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is still considered the standard-of-care, particularly in younger patients. However, selecting the appropriate type of valve prosthesis for this patient population can pose challenges. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate morbidity and mortality in patients aged 50-70 years who have undergone a first-time SAVR, and to define and compare the outcomes of mechanical valve (MV) and biological valve (BV) prosthesis. A systematic search was conducted to investigate the clinical outcomes of MVs and BVs in patients aged 50-70 years following the PRISMA guidelines. A total of 16,111 patients were included in the studies with an average follow-up of 10 years. A total of 16 studies were selected, 12 of which included propensity-score-matching (PMS) analysis and 4 of which obtained results via multivariate analysis. The vast majority (13 studies) showed no greater survival benefit in either MVs and BVs, while three studies showed an advantage of MVs over BVs. Regarding complications, bleeding was the most common adverse event in patients undergoing MV replacement, while for patients receiving BV prosthesis, it was structural valve deterioration and reoperation. Although the data suggest that the BV option could be a safe option in patients younger than 70 years, more studies with contemporary data are needed to draw firm conclusions on the risks and benefits of BV or MV in SAVR. Physicians should individualize the surgical plan based on patient characteristics.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a nonsurgical procedure used in the treatment of coronary heart disease. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to validate a scale created in order to assess the importance and fulfillment of information needs in patients after PCI. METHODS: A 10-item scale was created by the researchers to explore the level of information needs and the level of fulfillment of these needs. The total scores have a possible range of 10 to 40 with higher scores indicating higher importance and fulfillment. The validation of the questionnaire included face and content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, repeatability, and discriminant validity. RESULTS: Forty patients contributed to this validation. Mean and median scores for each question separately and also overall scores suggest that patients consider the need to be informed very important and that it was fulfilled to a very high degree (mean scores 39.5 and 39.3, respectively). All questions were found to be significantly correlated with the overall scores (rho > 0.3) meaning strong construct validity. Cronbach's α coefficients were high (>0.7) indicating great consistency. Both total scores had great repeatability, which suggests a high degree of reliability of the participants' responses (ICCs > 0.8). Regarding discriminant validity, a statistically significant association was observed only between marital status and the degree of fulfillment of the need to be informed (p = 0.036). More specifically, divorced or widowed patients had a lower degree of fulfillment than married patients (mean 38.6 vs. 39.6). CONCLUSION: It is a reliable instrument that will help clinicians who are at close contact with patients after PCI to gain a better understanding of their needs.
