3.8 Article Proceedings Paper

Durability of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in patients under the age of 60 years-1-year follow-up from the prospective INDURE registry

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivad115

关键词

Surgical aortic valve replacement; Structural valve degeneration; Valve durability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reports the 1-year safety and clinical outcomes of patients under 60 years old who underwent bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve intervention. The results showed good safety, excellent haemodynamic performance, and improved quality of life after the surgery.
OBJECTIVES: We report 1-year safety and clinical outcomes in patients <60 years undergoing bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve intervention.METHODS: The INSPIRIS RESILIA Durability Registry is a prospective, multicentre registry to assess clinical outcomes of patients <60 years. Patients with planned SAVR with or without concomitant replacement of the ascending aorta and/or coronary bypass surgery were included. Time-related valve safety, haemodynamic performance and quality of life (QoL) at 1 year were assessed.RESULTS: A total of 421 patients were documented with a mean age of 53.5 years, 76.5% being male and 27.2% in NYHA class III/IV. Outcomes within 30 days included cardiovascular-related mortality (0.7%), time-related valve safety (VARC-2; 5.8%), thromboembolic events (1.7%), valve-related life-threatening bleeding (VARC-2; 4.3%) and permanent pacemaker implantation (3.8%). QoL was significantly increased at 6 months and sustained at 1 year. Freedom from all-cause mortality at 1 year was 98.3% (95% confidence interval 97.1; 99.6) and 81.8% were NYHA I versus 21.9% at baseline. No patient developed structural valve deterioration stage 3 (VARC-3). The mean aortic pressure gradient was 12.6 mmHg at 1 year and the effective orifice area was 1.9 cm2.CONCLUSIONS: The 1-year data from the INSPIRIS RESILIA valve demonstrate good safety and excellent haemodynamic performance as well as an early QoL improvement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据