4.7 Article

One year follow-up of the multi-centre European PARTNER transcatheter heart valve study

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 148-157

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq427

关键词

Aortic valve stenosis; Transcatheter heart valve; Transfemoral; Transapical

资金

  1. Edwards Lifesciences, LLC.
  2. Edwards Lifesciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a new therapeutic option in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. Aims PARTNER EU is the first study to evaluate prospectively the procedural and mid-term outcomes of transfemoral (TF) or transapical (TA) implantation of the Edwards SAPIEN (R) valve involving a multi-disciplinary approach. Methods and results Primary safety endpoints were 30 days and 6 months mortality. Primary efficacy endpoints were haemodynamic and functional improvement at 12 months. One hundred and thirty patients (61 TF, 69 TA), aged 82.1 +/- 5.5 years were included. TA patients had higher logistic EuroSCORE (33.8 vs. 25.7%, P = 0.0005) and more peripheral disease (49.3 vs. 16.4%, P < 0.0001). Procedures were aborted in four TA (5.8%) and six TF cases (9.8%). Valve implantation was successful in the remaining patients in 95.4 and 96.4%, respectively. Thirty days and 6 months survival were 81.2 and 58.0% (TA) and 91.8 and 90.2% (TF). In both groups, mean aortic gradient decreased from 46.9 +/- 18.1 to 10.9 +/- 5.4 mmHg 6 months post-TAVI. In total, 78.1 and 84.8% of patients experienced significant improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, whereas 73.9 and 72.7% had improved Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores in TA and TF cohorts, respectively. Conclusion This first team-based multi-centre European TAVI registry shows promising results in high-risk patients treated by TF or TA delivery. Survival rates differ significantly between TF and TA groups and probably reflect the higher risk profile of the TA cohort. Optimal patient screening, approach selection, and device refinement may improve outcomes.

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

4.7
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