4.8 Article

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Impact on Clinical and Valve-Related Outcomes

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 119, 期 23, 页码 3009-3016

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.837807

关键词

aortic valve; aortic valve stenosis; catheters; prosthesis; valves; valvuloplasty

资金

  1. Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, Calif

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is an alternative to open heart surgery in patients with aortic stenosis. However, long-term data on a programmatic approach to aortic valve implantation remain sparse. Methods and Results-Transcatheter aortic valve implantation was performed in 168 patients (median age, 84 years) in the setting of severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk. Access was transarterial (n = 113) or, in the presence of small iliofemoral artery diameter, transapical (n = 55). The overall success rate was 94.1% in this early experience. Intraprocedural mortality was 1.2%. Operative (30-day) mortality was 11.3%, lower in the transarterial group than the transapical group (8.0% versus 18.2%; P = 0.07). Overall mortality fell from 14.3% in the initial half to 8.3% in the second half of the experience, from 12.3% to 3.6% (P = 0.16) in transarterial patients and from 25% to 11.1% (P = 0.30) in transapical patients. Functional class improved over the 1-year postprocedure period (P < 0.001). Survival at 1 year was 74%. The bulk of late readmission and mortality was not procedure or valve related but rather was due to comorbidities. Paravalvular regurgitation was common but generally mild and remained stable at late follow-up. At a maximum of >3 years and a median of 221 days, structural valve failure was not observed. Conclusions-Transcatheter aortic valve implantation can result in early and sustained functional improvement in high-risk aortic stenosis patients. Late outcome is determined primarily by comorbidities unrelated to aortic valve disease. (Circulation. 2009; 119: 3009-3016.)

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

4.8
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