Impact of baseline left ventricular ejection fraction on outcome after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with and without low-gradient aortic stenosis

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karim El-Chilali ◽  
Polykarpos Christos Patsalis ◽  
Fadi Al-Rashid ◽  
Heike Annelie Kahlert ◽  
Matthias Riebisch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Implantation ◽  
Valve Implantation

P6473Impact of prosthesis choice on mortality after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with reduced versus preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
K El Chilali ◽  
H A Kahlert ◽  
M Riebisch ◽  
R I Mincu ◽  
F Al-Rashid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Implantation ◽  
Valve Implantation

Abstract Background Outcomes of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) with a self-expanding (SEP) and a balloon-expandable prosthesis (BEP) seem to be comparable, though head-to-head comparisons, especially in certain patient subsets, are sparse. In addition, patients with a reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction (rEF, ≤40%) appear to be at higher risk for an increased mortality after TF-TAVI than patients with a preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction (pEF). As it remains unclear, whether outcomes of patients with rEF differ between TF-TAVI using SEP and BEP, we sought to compare all-cause mortality of patients with rEF using a SEP or a BEP. Methods We retrospectively analyzed data of 679 single-center TF-TAVI patients, which were stratified by baseline ejection fraction (rEF versus pEF) and type of implanted prosthesis (SEP versus BEP). Patients were censored at death or completion of 1-year follow-up, whichever occurred first. Results Twenty-one percent of patients had rEF, and these patients had a higher 1-year mortality compared to patients with pEF (28% vs. 19%, p=0.007). SEP were implanted in 149 patients (49 patients with rEF), while BEP were implanted in 538 patients (92 patients with rEF). All-cause 1-year mortality was similar after SEP- and BEP-implantation (16% vs 19%, p=0.516) in patients with pEF. In patients with rEF, however, 1-year mortality was higher after SEP- than after BEP-implantation (43% vs. 21%, p=0.004, see figure). Patients with rEF had a higher incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation (26.5% vs. 13%, p=0.046) and paravalvular leak ≥2 (21% vs. 10%, p=0.07) after SEP- than after BEP-implantation, but both factors could not explain the excess mortality after SEP-implantation in multivariate analysis. Conclusion Patients with rEF had a higher 30-day and 1-year mortality after TF-TAVI when a SEP instead of a BEP was used. Further studies are needed to confirm and explain this finding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document