4.7 Article

The German Aortic Valve Registry (GARY): in-hospital outcome

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 35, 期 24, 页码 1588-1598

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht381

关键词

Aortic stenosis; Surgery; Catheter-based valve replacement; GARY

资金

  1. Edwards Lifesciences
  2. JenaValve Technology
  3. Medtronic
  4. Sorin
  5. St. Jude Medical
  6. Symetis S. A
  7. Deutsche Aortenklappenreister gGmbH
  8. DGK
  9. DGTHG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Aortic stenosis is a frequent valvular disease especially in elderly patients. Catheter-based valve implantation has emerged as a valuable treatment approach for these patients being either at very high risk for conventional surgery or even deemed inoperable. The German Aortic Valve Registry (GARY) provides data on conventional and catheter-based aortic procedures on an all-comers basis. Methods and results A total of 13 860 consecutive patients undergoing repair for aortic valve disease [conventional surgery and transvascular (TV) or transapical (TA) catheter-based techniques] have been enrolled in this registry during 2011 and baseline, procedural, and outcome data have been acquired. The registry summarizes the results of 6523 conventional aortic valve replacements without (AVR) and 3464 with concomitant coronary bypass surgery (AVR + CABG) as well as 2695 TVAVI and 1181 TA interventions (TA AVI). Patients undergoing catheter-based techniques were significantly older and had higher risk profiles. The stroke rate was low in all groups with 1.3% (AVR), 1.9% (AVR + CABG), 1.7% (TVAVI), and 2.3% (TA AVI). The in-hospital mortality was 2.1% (AVR) and 4.5% (AVR + CABG) for patients undergoing conventional surgery, and 5.1% (TVAVI) and AVI 7.7% (TA AVI). Conclusion The in-hospital outcome results of this registry show that conventional surgery yields excellent results in all risk groups and that catheter-based aortic valve replacements is an alternative to conventional surgery in high risk and elderly patients.

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