Abstract 19080: Risk Stratification in Arch Surgery: When High Risk is Too High? Implications for Open or Endovascular Repair From a 15-Years Survey on Over 350 Patients

Circulation ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 130 (suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauro Iafrancesco ◽  
Aaron M Ranasinghe ◽  
Vamsidhar Dronavalli ◽  
Donald J Adam ◽  
Martin W Claridge ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Aortic Arch ◽  
Endovascular Repair ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Cord Injury ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Open Arch ◽  
Very High

Introduction: At present, there are not risk scoring tools to predict in-hospital mortality for total aortic arch replacement (TAR), Hypothesis: To assess if Logistic Euroscore (LogES) is a useful tool for risk assessment in aortic arch surgery and which other operative factors may help to better identify high-risk patients. Methods: All patients who underwent open arch procedure between 1998 and 2013 were identified from our prospectively collected database which include 93 preoperative variables. Results: Three-hundred-fifty-seven open arch procedures were identified. Two-hundred-forty-two patients underwent TAR, 199 with conventional technique and 43 with frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique. Patients with higher LogES had higher in-hospital mortality (see table 1). Patient with a LogEs <20, 20-60 and >60 were classified as low-, high- or very high-risk, respectively. Complexity of surgery, defined as need for aortic root replacement (ARR) and/or mitral valve repair/replacement (MVR), increased significantly the risk of operation (27% vs. 4.2%, p:0.004) only in conventional TAR in high-risk patients. Low-risk patients were associated with low mortality regardless the extent of surgery whilst very high risk-patients had a high-risk of death even with simple operations. Mortality risk in FET was not increased by need for ARR/MVR. Rate of permanent neurological deficit remained low in all category of patients. Spinal cord injury (SCI) did not occur in any conventional TAR. Conclusions: Open surgery should remain the treatment of choice for patients with low/moderate LogES and high LogES without need for ARR/MVR. Patient with very-high LogES who do not need ARR/MVR should be consider for endovascular repair. Patient with high and very-high LogES and need for ARR/MVR cannot undergo endovascular treatment and remain a significant challenge. FET remains a procedure with an increase risk of death and SCI.

scholarly journals Endovascular repair of aortic arch lesions in high-risk patients or after previous aortic surgery: Midterm results

2010 ◽  
Vol 140 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ludovic Canaud ◽  
Kheira Hireche ◽  
Jean-Philippe Berthet ◽  
Pascal Branchereau ◽  
Charles Marty-Ané ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Aortic Arch ◽  
Endovascular Repair ◽  
Aortic Surgery ◽  
Midterm Results ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

TWILIGHT: A Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Monotherapy Versus Ticagrelor Plus Aspirin Beginning at 3 Months in High-risk Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johny Nicolas ◽  
Usman Baber ◽  
Roxana Mehran
Keyword(s):  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Dual Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
Risk Patients

A P2Y12 inhibitor-based monotherapy after a short period of dual antiplatelet therapy is emerging as a plausible strategy to decrease bleeding events in high-risk patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention. Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention (TWILIGHT), a randomized double-blind trial, tested this approach by dropping aspirin at 3 months and continuing with ticagrelor monotherapy for an additional 12 months. The study enrolled 9,006 patients, of whom 7,119 who tolerated 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy were randomized after 3 months into two arms: ticagrelor plus placebo and ticagrelor plus aspirin. The primary endpoint of interest, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, occurred less frequently in the experimental arm (HR 0.56; 95% CI [0.45–0.68]; p<0.001), whereas the secondary endpoint of ischemic events was similar between the two arms (HR 0.99; 95% CI [0.78–1.25]). Transition from dual antiplatelet therapy consisting of ticagrelor plus aspirin to ticagrelor-based monotherapy in high-risk patients at 3 months after percutaneous coronary intervention resulted in a lower risk of bleeding events without an increase in risk of death, MI, or stroke.

PO-09 Very high-risk patients: a prospective study of thromboembolic events in patients under thromboprophylaxis

2021 ◽  
Vol 200 ◽  
pp. S22
Author(s):  
J. Liz Pimenta ◽  
K. Ladeira ◽  
A. Teira ◽  
M. Rocha ◽  
P. Gago ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Prospective Study ◽  
Thromboembolic Events ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
A Prospective Study ◽  
Very High

Acute Safety and 30-Day Outcome After Percutaneous Edge-to-Edge Repair of Mitral Regurgitation in Very High-Risk Patients

2011 ◽  
Vol 108 (10) ◽  
pp. 1478-1482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sven T. Pleger ◽  
Derliz Mereles ◽  
Marius Schulz-Schönhagen ◽  
Ulrike Krumsdorf ◽  
Emmanuel Chorianopoulos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Mitral Regurgitation ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Very High

Abstract P275: Demographic and Clinical Profile of Patients with Risk Factors for Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) Defined by National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III Guidelines

Circulation ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 129 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
David M Kern ◽  
Sanjeev Balu ◽  
Ozgur Tunceli ◽  
Swetha Raparla ◽  
Deborah Anzalone
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Low Hdl ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Artery Disease ◽  
Very High ◽  
Statin Use

Introduction: This study aimed to compare the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with different risk factors for CHD as defined by NCEP ATP III guidelines. Methods: Dyslipidemia patients (≥1 medical claim for dyslipidemia, ≥1 pharmacy claim for a statin, or ≥1 LDL-C value ≥100 mg/dL [index date]) aged ≥18 y were identified from the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment from 1/1/2007-7/31/2012. Patients were classified as low risk (0 or 1 risk factor): hypertension, age ≥45 y [men] or ≥55 y [women], or low HDL-C), moderate/moderately high risk (≥2 risk factors), high risk (having CHD or CHD risk equivalent), or very high risk (having ACS or other established cardiovascular disease plus diabetes or metabolic syndrome). Demographics, comorbidities, medication use and lipid levels during the 12 months prior, and statin use during the 6 months post-index date were compared across risk groups (very high vs each other risk group). Results: There were 1,524,351 low-risk (mean age: 47 y; 45% men), 242,357 moderate-risk (mean age: 58 y; 59% men), 188,222 high-risk (mean age: 57 y; 52% men), and 57,469 very-high-risk (mean age: 63 y; 61% men) patients identified. Mean Deyo-Charlson comorbidity score differed greatly across risk strata: 0.20, 0.33, 1.26, and 2.22 from low to very high risk (p<.0001 for each). Compared with high-risk patients, very-high-risk patients had a higher rate of ischemic stroke: 5.4% vs 4.1%; peripheral artery disease: 17.1% vs 11.6%; coronary artery disease: 8.5% vs 8.2%; and abdominal aortic aneurysm: 2.3% vs 2.0% (p<.05 for each). Less than 1% of the total population had a prior prescription for each non-statin lipid-lowering medication (bile acid sequestrants, fibrates, ezetimibe, niacin, and omega-3). Very-high-risk patients had lower total cholesterol (very-high-risk mean: 194 mg/dL vs 207, 205, and 198 mg/dL for low-, moderate-/moderately-high-, and high-risk patients, respectively) and LDL-C (very-high-risk mean: 110 mg/dL vs 126, 126, and 116 mg/dL for the other risk groups; p<.0001 for each); higher triglycerides (TG) (very-high-risk mean: 206 mg/dL vs 123, 177, and 167 mg/dL for the other groups; p<.0001 for each); and lower HDL-C (very-high-risk mean: 45 mg/dL vs 57 [p<.0001], 45 [p=.006], and 51 mg/dL [p<.0001]). Statin use was low overall (15%), but higher in the very-high-risk group (45%) vs the high- (29%), moderate-/moderately-high- (18%), and low- (12%) risk groups (p<.0001 for each). Conclusions: Despite a large proportion of patients having high lipid levels, statin use after a dyslipidemia diagnosis was low: ≥80% of all patients (and more than half at very high risk) failed to receive a statin, indicating a potentially large population of patients who could benefit from statin treatment. Prior use of non-statin lipid-lowering medications was also low considering the high TG and low HDL-C levels among high-risk patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document