Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 83
Filtrar
1.
Ann Thorac Surg ; 2021 Nov 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34785247

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The relationship between institutional volume and operative mortality following SAVR remains unclear. METHODS: From 1/2013 to 6/2018, 234,556 patients underwent isolated SAVR (n=144,177) or SAVR+CABG (n=90,379) within the STS ACSD. The association between annualized SAVR volume [Group 1 (1-25 SAVR), Group 2 (26-50 SAVR), Group 3 (51-100 SAVR), and Group 4 (>100 SAVR)] and operative mortality and composite major morbidity/mortality was assessed. Random effects models were used to evaluate whether historic (2013-2015) SAVR volume or risk-adjusted outcomes explained future (2016-2018) risk-adjusted outcomes. RESULTS: The annualized median number of SAVRs per site was 35 [IQR: 22-59, isolated AVR: 20, AVR+CABG: 13]. Among isolated SAVR cases, the mean operative mortality and composite morbidity/mortality were 1.5% and 9.7%, respectively, at the highest volume sites (Group 4); with significantly higher rates among progressively lower volume groups (p-trend<0.001). After adjustment, lower volume centers experienced increased odds of operative mortality [Group 1 vs. 4 (Ref): AOR (SAVR), 2.24 (1.91-2.64); AOR (SAVR+CABG), 1.96 (1.67-2.30)] and major morbidity/mortality [AOR (SAVR), 1.53 (1.39-1.69); AOR (SAVR+CABG), 1.46 (1.32-1.61)] compared to the highest volume institutions. Substantial variation in outcomes was observed across hospitals within each volume category and prior outcomes explained a greater proportion of hospital operative outcomes than prior volume. CONCLUSIONS: Operative outcomes following SAVR±CABG is inversely associated with institutional procedure volumes; however, prior outcomes are more predictive than prior volume of future outcomes. Given excellent outcomes observed at many lower volume hospitals, procedural outcomes may be preferable to procedural volumes as a quality metric.

9.
Innovations (Phila) ; 16(1): 3-16, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33491539

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: There is an increasing amount of evidence supporting use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for treatment of aortic stenosis in patients at low or intermediate risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). TAVR is now approved for use in all patient cohorts. Despite this, there remains debate about the relative efficacy of TAVR compared with SAVR in lower-risk cohorts and various subgroups of patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-matched trials to guide a consensus among expert cardiologists and surgeons. METHODS: Studies comparing TAVR and SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients were identified by a thorough search of the major databases. Mortality, stroke, and other perioperative outcomes were assessed at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS: Early mortality was lower in TAVR compared to SAVR in RCTs, but not propensity-matched studies in low-risk cohorts (0.66% vs 1.5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20 to 0.98, I2 = 0%). No difference in mortality between TAVR and SAVR was identified in intermediate-risk patients at early or later time points. Incidence of perioperative stroke in 3 low-risk RCTs was significantly lower in TAVR (0.4%) than SAVR (1.4%; OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.81, I2 = 0%). There was no difference in stroke for intermediate-risk patients between TAVR and SAVR. The expert panel of cardiologists and cardiac surgeons provided recommendations for TAVR and SAVR in various clinical scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: In RCTs comparing TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients, early mortality and stroke were lower in TAVR, but did not differ at 1 year. There was no difference in mortality and stroke in intermediate-risk patients. The Multidisciplinary Heart Team must consider individual patient characteristics and preferences when recommending TAVR or SAVR. The decision must consider the long-term management of each patient's aortic valve disease.


Assuntos
Estenose da Valva Aórtica , Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca , Substituição da Valva Aórtica Transcateter , Valva Aórtica/cirurgia , Estenose da Valva Aórtica/cirurgia , Consenso , Humanos , Medição de Risco , Fatores de Risco , Resultado do Tratamento
11.
Ann Thorac Surg ; 111(2): 390-397, 2021 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32798455

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The presence of mitral annular calcification (MAC) in patients with mitral valve (MV) stenosis or regurgitation is a difficult scenario for surgeons and the heart team. Patients with MAC most often have a significant number of comorbidities that exclude them as surgical candidates. This review highlights the various contemporary techniques available to manage MAC during treatment of the MV. METHODS: This study is a focused review of the anatomy, pathology, and management of MAC. The review describes the surgical and transcatheter techniques with outcomes, where available. RESULTS: The incidence of MAC is between 5% and 42% in patients with severe MV disease. The pathophysiology underlying MAC is not yet clear, but it most likely is related to processes of inflammation and atherosclerosis. Surgical techniques can be grouped into those in which the MAC is completely resected en bloc and those in which the MAC is incompletely resected or left in situ. Transcatheter therapies are feasible in some patients, but they have been limited by the anatomic constraints of MAC; most importantly left ventricular outflow tract obstruction and paravalvular regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons as part of the heart team now have a range of techniques to manage MAC in those patients with severe MV disease. Transcatheter therapies may increase the options for patients whose surgical risk is too high.


Assuntos
Calcinose/cirurgia , Cateterismo Cardíaco/métodos , Doenças das Valvas Cardíacas/cirurgia , Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca/métodos , Valva Mitral/cirurgia , Humanos , Resultado do Tratamento
20.
Ann Thorac Surg ; 110(1): 296-306, 2020 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31981499

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve-sparing operations theoretically have fewer stroke and bleeding complications but may increase late reoperation risk versus composite valve grafts. METHODS: We meta-analyzed all studies comparing aortic valve-sparing (reimplantation and remodelling) and composite valve-grafting (bioprosthetic and mechanical) procedures. Early outcomes were all-cause mortality, reoperation for bleeding, myocardial infarction, and thromboembolism/stroke. Long-term outcomes included all-cause mortality, reintervention, bleeding, and thromboembolism/stroke. Studies exclusively investigating dissection or pediatric populations were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 3794 patients who underwent composite valve grafting and 2424 who underwent aortic valve-sparing procedures were included from 9 adjusted and 17 unadjusted observational studies. Mean follow-up was 5.8 ± 3.0 years. Aortic valve sparing was not associated with any difference in early mortality, bleeding, myocardial infarction, or thromboembolic complications. Late mortality was significantly lower after valve sparing (incident risk ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.87; P < .01). Late thromboembolism/stroke (incident rate ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.22-0.60; P < .01) and bleeding (incident rate ratio, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.11-0.42; P < .01) risks were lower after valve sparing. Procedure type did not affect late reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic valve sparing appears to be safe and associated with reduced late mortality, thromboembolism/stroke, and bleeding compared with composite valve grafting. Late durability is equivalent. Aortic valve sparing should be considered in patients with favorable aortic valve morphology.


Assuntos
Doenças da Aorta/cirurgia , Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca , Doenças da Aorta/etiologia , Doenças da Aorta/patologia , Humanos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...