Bleeding Severity in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) and its Impact on short-Term Clinical Outcomes (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Interventional Cardiology, 2010
has been used as a bridge to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). Such patients are now being referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We sought to study the indications and outcomes of BAV in patients with severe AS in the pre-TAVI era. Methods: We analyzed consecutive patients with severe AS undergoing BAV from 1990BAV from to 2005. In these patients with no immediate surgical option, BAV was attempted to temporarily improve hemodynamics, with a goal to improve general health of the patient, and ultimately AVR. Results: A total of 99 BAVs (eight repeats, one second repeat) were performed in 90 consecutive patients. Baseline ejection fraction was ≤25% in 36 (36%) patients. The 30-day mortality rate was 17% (n = 17). Of the 99 patients, 27 (30%) underwent AVR. Average follow-up of patients with and without AVR was 55 ± 57 months and 16 ± 23 months, respectively. The 6-month and 1-year survival rates in patients who underwent AVR were 81% and 78%, respectively, versus 57% and 44% in patients who did not undergo AVR (P = 0.024). Conclusion: BAV can be used successfully to clinically improve the health of some nonsurgical patients with severe symptomatic AS, and a proportion of these patients improve to a point where AVR can be performed. Bridging to TAVI will provide further options to high-risk patients who cannot be bridged to conventional AVR. The role of BAV in bridging to TAVI merits further study. (J Interven Cardiol 2010;23:499-508)
Clinical outcomes in patients after surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement
Polish Archives of Internal Medicine, 2015
INTRODUCTION Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (minithoracotomy and ministernotomy) have become a valuable alternative to conventional surgical treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) in high-risk patients. OBJECTIVES The aim of the study was to evaluate long-term results and complications in patients with symptomatic AS treated with TAVI, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), minithoracotomy, or ministernotomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 173 patients with symptomatic AS were enrolled to the study between the years 2011 and 2013. Propensity scores were calculated for TAVI and each surgical method separately. Differences in clinical outcomes between patients treated with TAVI and those treated with surgical methods were adjusted for propensity scores using a logistic regression analysis and presented as adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intrervals. RESULTS A median follow-up was 583.5 days (interquartile range, 298-736 days). Before aortic valve replacement (AVR), no significant differences in ejection fraction (EF) were observed between the groups. At 1 week after AVR, mean EF values were significantly higher in patients after TAVI in comparison with the other groups (TAVI, 50.2% ±13.1%; minithoracotomy, 44.1% ±13.4%; ministernotomy, 37.8% ±12.8%; SAVR, 40.3% ±12.5%; P = 0.001). There were no differences in the longest available follow-up mortality between the analyzed groups (P = 0.8). To our best knowledge, this is the first study comparing minithoracotomy, ministernotomy, and SAVR with TAVI in terms of long-term outcomes such as the longest available follow-up mortality, left ventricular (LV) function, complications after the procedure, and conduction disturbances and arrhythmias after the procedure. CONCULSIONS Patients undergoing TAVI show more beneficial long-term outcomes in comparison with patients undergoing minithoracotomy, ministernotomy, and SAVR and do not differ in terms of the longest available follow-up mortality. TAVI seems to have a more favorable effect on LV function and an increase in EF in comparison with the surgical methods.
Journal of Interventional Cardiology, 2010
Background: Balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) has been used as a bridge to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). Such patients are now being referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We sought to study the indications and outcomes of BAV in patients with severe AS in the pre-TAVI era.Methods: We analyzed consecutive patients with severe AS undergoing BAV from 1990 to 2005. In these patients with no immediate surgical option, BAV was attempted to temporarily improve hemodynamics, with a goal to improve general health of the patient, and ultimately AVR.Results: A total of 99 BAVs (eight repeats, one second repeat) were performed in 90 consecutive patients. Baseline ejection fraction was ≤25% in 36 (36%) patients. The 30-day mortality rate was 17% (n = 17). Of the 99 patients, 27 (30%) underwent AVR. Average follow-up of patients with and without AVR was 55 ± 57 months and 16 ± 23 months, respectively. The 6-month and 1-year survival rates in patients who underwent AVR were 81% and 78%, respectively, versus 57% and 44% in patients who did not undergo AVR (P = 0.024).Conclusion: BAV can be used successfully to clinically improve the health of some nonsurgical patients with severe symptomatic AS, and a proportion of these patients improve to a point where AVR can be performed. Bridging to TAVI will provide further options to high-risk patients who cannot be bridged to conventional AVR. The role of BAV in bridging to TAVI merits further study. (J Interven Cardiol 2010;23:499–508)
Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, 2013
The aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to assess how the development of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) influenced the characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve procedures. METHODS: We reviewed 1395 patients who underwent isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or TAVI in three centres with a high-volume TAVI programme. Patients were divided into two groups: 'Pre-TAVI' (395 patients, 28.3%) and 'Post-TAVI' (1000 patients, 71.7%) operated on before and after the introduction of TAVI into clinical practice. We evaluated age, logistic EuroSCORE I (LES) and hospital mortality according to time periods and the procedure performed, whether SAVR or TAVI. RESULTS: 'Post-TAVI' patients were older (78.2 ± 7.8 vs 76.8 ± 6.7 years; P = 0.002) and with a significantly higher LES (17.8 ± 14.7 vs 9.1 ± 9.2%; P < 0.001) than 'Pre-TAVI' patients. Hospital mortality was not significantly different between groups ('Pre-TAVI' vs 'Post-TAVI': 2 vs 3.4%; P = 0.17). Of the 1000 'Post-TAVI' patients, 605 (60.5%) underwent TAVI and 395 (39.5%), SAVR. Patients undergoing TAVI were older (79.9 ± 7.1 vs 75.5 ± 9.2 years; P < 0.001) and with a higher LES (22.9 ± 15.3 vs 9.7 ± 9.3%; P < 0.001) than 'Post-TAVI' SAVR patients, but their hospital mortality was similar (3.9 vs 2.5%; P = 0.22). LES was similar between 'Pre-TAVI' and 'Post-TAVI' SAVR patients (9.1 ± 9.2 vs 9.7 ± 9.3%; P = 0.26). Furthermore, we did not find significant differences in the overall hospital mortality between SAVR and TAVI patients: 2.3 vs 3.9%, P = 0.08. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows that the development of TAVI has caused an increase in the preoperative risk profile of patients scheduled for aortic valve procedures (SAVR or TAVI) without increasing hospital mortality.
2018
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the treatment of choice in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) considered inoperable or at high surgical risk. More recently, TAVI has been performed also to lower risk patients based on the Heart Team decision. Few studies have studied interaction between surgical risk categories and outcomes. Aim of the study To analyze safety and efficacy (VARC-2 defined) TAVI treated patients as function of different preoperative risk. To assess independent predictors of death. Methods Four-hundred-eighty-two patients who underwent TAVI in our center between 2007 and 2017 were included in the study. According to Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score and to other parameters, all the patients were retrospectively stratified into 4 groups: prohibitive (contraindications to aortic valve replacement, n = 124), high (STS > 8, n = 131), intermediate (4 ≤ STS ≤ 8, n = 112) and low (STS < 4, n = 115) risk. Early, 1-year ...
EuroIntervention, 2010
Aims: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a new option for patients with severe aortic stenosis at high surgical risk. We compared the clinical outcome of patients referred for TAVI and subsequently treated with TAVI, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV), or medical management (MM). Methods and results: All consecutive patients (n=166, EuroSCORE 24.9±13.9%) referred for TAVI to our two centres were enrolled in a prospective registry and were assigned to SAVR (n=21), TAVI with the CoreValve prosthesis (n=75), BAV (n=20), or MM (n=50) by a multi-specialty team. The primary endpoint was 6-month cardiac mortality. Patients undergoing BAV had a significantly higher EuroSCORE (33.6±15.9%; p=0.01). Median follow-up time was nine months (interquartile range 4.5-12.4 months). Six-month freedom from cardiac death was 81.0±8.6%, 92.0±3.1%, 72.9±10.5%, and 72.7±6.5% for SAVR, TAVI, BAV, and MM groups, respectively. Freedom from major cardiac and cerebrovascular events was 76.2±9.3%, 83.9±4.3%, 72.9±10.5%, and 65.6±6.8% for SAVR, TAVI, BAV, and MM groups, respectively. Conclusions: With respect to medical management and BAV, TAVI was associated with lower cardiac mortality at six months. Clinical outcome after TAVI was similar to that of less sick patients undergoing SAVR.
Incidence and prognosis of vascular complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation
Journal of Vascular Surgery, 2013
Objective: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has gained increasing global popularity as a minimally invasive option for high-risk cardiac patients. However, this operation is not without risk, particularly of significant vascular complications that increase the morbidity, mortality, and overall cost of the procedure. We aim to present our experience of TAVI-related vascular complications, including the morbidity and cost impacts of these events. Methods: A case-series study was performed for all patients undergoing TAVI at our center. Vascular complications were defined according to the 2011 Valve Academic Research Consortium standardized end points. The data were prospectively collected from February 2009 to April 2012, and the outcomes were entered into a database and cross-checked with the hospital notes. Results: TAVI was performed on 100 patients in our center during the study period, and the 30-day mortality was 6%. Access approaches included 81 transfemoral, 18 transapical, and one trans-subclavian access. The average patient age was 84.9 years, and 65% of the patients were male. Among the transfemoral procedures, there were 16 vascular access-related complications (VAC), including nine major and seven minor complications. The major complications included aortic dissection, iliac arterial rupture, femoral dissection, false aneurysms, and distal embolization, all of which required surgical or endovascular repair. An apical false aneurysm and an apical tear were major VAC of the transapical group, with the latter resulting in death. Patients with VAC had higher blood transfusion requirements (4.1 6 4.5 units vs 0.9 6 2.2 units; P [ .004), greater length of hospital stay (16.4 6 10.7 days vs 6.5 6 5.1 days; P [ .001), and increased cost (A$93,448 6 21,435 vs A$69,932 6 15,007; P [ .002) compared with the non-VAC group. The predictors of vascular complications using multivariate analysis included European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.10; P [ .001) and diabetes mellitus (odds ratio, 5.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-21.88; P [ .03). Occurrence of major VAC did not affect in-hospital or 30-day mortality rates and was not associated with poorer survival. Conclusions: Vascular complications affect perioperative management and outcomes following TAVI. Our findings show that these complications often require urgent surgical or endovascular repair and result in increased blood transfusions, greater length of hospital stay, and significantly increased costs. Diabetes mellitus and logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation may be predictive of VAC and should be considered during TAVI patient selection.
Annals of cardiothoracic surgery, 2017
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation/replacement (TAVI/TAVR) is becoming more frequently used to treat aortic stenosis (AS), with increasing push for the procedure in lower risk patients. Numerous randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that TAVI offers a suitable alternative to the current gold standard of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in terms of short-term outcomes. The present review evaluates long-term outcomes following TAVI procedures. Literature search using three electronic databases was performed up to June 2017. Studies which included 20 or more patients undergoing TAVI procedures, either as a stand-alone or concomitant procedure and with a follow-up of at least 5 years, were included in the present review. Literature search and data extraction were performed by two independent researchers. Digitized survival data were extracted from Kaplan-Meier curves in order to re-create the original patient data using an iterative algorithm and subsequently aggre...
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 2018
Objectives: To evaluate the safety and the feasibility of balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) procedure made by trained operators in centers not performing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Background: BAV is a valuable therapeutic tool for patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) at prohibitive risk for TAVI or surgery. Methods: Consecutive high-risk AS patients underwent BAV in five non-TAVI centers, where BAV operators had completed a 6-month training period in high-volume TAVI centers (Group A). All clinical, echocardiographic, and procedural data were prospectively collected and compared with data of patients treated in TAVI center (Group B).