4.4 Article

Effect of Body Mass Index on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 111, 期 2, 页码 231-236

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.09.022

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Better outcomes have been reported after percutaneous cardiac intervention in obese patients (obesity paradox). However, limited information is available on the effect of the body mass index on the outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We, therefore, sought to determine the effect of the body mass index on the short- and long-term outcomes in patients who underwent TAVI. The population consisted of 940 patients, of whom 25 (2.7%) were underweight, 384 had a (40.9%) normal weight, 372 (39.6%) were overweight, and 159 (16.9%) were obese. Overall, the obese patients were younger (79.7 +/- 6.4 years vs 81.7 +/- 7.3 and 80.8 +/- 7.0 years, p = 0.008) and had a greater prevalence of preserved left ventricular and renal function. On univariate analysis, obese patients had a greater incidence of minor stroke (1.3% vs 0 and 0.3%, p = 0.03), minor vascular complications (15.7% vs 9.1% and 11.6%, p = 0.028) and acute kidney injury stage I (23.3% vs 10.7% and 16.1%, p <0.001). After adjustment, body mass index, as a continuous variable, was associated with a lower risk of mortality at 30 days (odds ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 0.98, p = 0.023) and no effect on survival after discharge (hazard ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.07, p = 0.73). In conclusion, obesity was associated with a greater incidence of minor, but no major, perioperative complications after TAVI. After adjustment, obesity was associated with a lower risk of 30-day mortality and had no adverse effect on mortality after discharge, underscoring the obesity paradox in patients undergoing TAVI. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2013;111:231-236)

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

4.4
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