In-hospital outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in younger patients less than 75 years old: a propensity-matched comparison

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holger Eggebrecht ◽  
Kurt Bestehorn ◽  
Tienush Rassaf ◽  
Maike Bestehorn ◽  
Thomas Voigtländer ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Wu ◽  
Chenguang Li ◽  
Yang Zheng ◽  
Qian Tong ◽  
Quan Liu ◽  
...  

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the temporal trends of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in severe aortic stenosis (AS) patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and to compare the in-hospital outcomes between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with AF.Background: Data comparing TAVR to SAVR in severe AS patients with AF are lacking.Methods: National inpatient sample database in the United States from 2012 to 2016 were queried to identify hospitalizations for severe aortic stenosis patients with AF who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement. A propensity score-matched analysis was used to compare in-hospital outcomes for TAVR vs. SAVR for AS patients with AF.Results: The analysis included 278,455 hospitalizations, of which 124,910 (44.9%) were comorbid with AF. Before matching, TAVR had higher in-hospital mortality than SAVR (3.1 vs. 2.2%, p < 0.001); however, there was a declining trend during the study period (Ptrend < 0.001). After matching, TAVR and SAVR had similar in-hospital mortality (2.9 vs. 2.9%, p < 0.001) and stroke. TAVR was associated with lower rates of acute kidney injury, new dialysis, cardiac complications, acquired pneumonia, sepsis, mechanical ventilation, tracheostomy, non-routine discharge, and shorter length of stay; however, TAVR was associated with more pacemaker implantation and higher cost. Of the patients receiving TAVR, the presence of AF was associated with an increased rate of complications and increased medical resource usage compared to those without AF.Conclusions: In-hospital mortality and stroke for TAVR and SAVR in AF, AS are similar; however, the in-hospital mortality in TAVR AF is declining and associated with more favorable in-hospital outcomes.


2018 ◽  
Vol 86 (3) ◽  
pp. 196-199
Author(s):  
Raúl A. Borracci ◽  
Miguel Rubio ◽  
Julio Baldi ◽  
Rodolfo A. Ahuad Guerrero ◽  
Víctor Mauro ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (23) ◽  
pp. 5554
Author(s):  
Keti Vitanova ◽  
Felix Wirth ◽  
Johannes Boehm ◽  
Melchior Burri ◽  
Rüdiger Lange ◽  
...  

Background: Recently, the use of surgically implanted aortic bioprostheses has been favoured in younger patients. We aimed to analyse the long-term survival and postoperative MACCE (Major Adverse Cardiovascular and Cerebral Event) rates in patients after isolated aortic valve replacement. Methods: We conducted a single-centre observational retrospective study, including all consecutive patients with isolated aortic valve replacement. 1:1 propensity score matching of the preoperative baseline characteristics was performed. Results: A total of 2172 patients were enrolled in the study. After propensity score matching the study included 428 patients: 214 biological vs. 214 mechanical prostheses, divided into two subgroups: group A < 60 years and group B > 60 years. The mean follow-up time was 7.6 ± 3.9 years. Estimated survival was 97 ± 1.9% and 89 ± 3.4% at 10 years for biological and mechanical prosthesis, respectively in group A (p = 0.06). In group B the survival at 10 years was 79.1 ± 5.8% and 69.8 ± 4.4% for biological and mechanical prosthesis, respectively (p = 0.83). In group A, patients with a bioprosthesis exhibited a tendency for higher cumulative incidence MACCE rates compared to patients with a mechanical prosthesis, p = 0.83 (bio 7.3 ± 5.3% vs. mech 4.6 ± 2.2% at 10 years). In group B, patients with a mechanical prosthesis showed a tendency for higher cumulative incidence MACCE rates compared to patients with bioprosthesis, p = 0.86 (bio 4.3 ± 3.1% vs. mech 9.1 ± 3.1% at 10 years). Conclusions: Long-term survival after surgical aortic valve replacement is similar in patients with a biological and mechanical prosthesis, independent of the patients’ age. Moreover, younger patients (<60 years) with bioprosthesis showed a survival benefit, compared to patients with mechanical prosthesis in this age group.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document