ABSTRACT
RESUMEN La difusión del reemplazo valvular aórtico percutáneo (TAVI) en la estenosis aórtica (EAo) generó la creación de un Heart Team (HT), para elegir el mejor tratamiento. Existen pocos reportes sobre su utilidad. Objetivos: analizar los resultados del tratamiento de los pacientes con EAo evaluados por un HT durante 10 años Material y métodos: Inclusión consecutiva de todos los pacientes con EAo candidatos a TAVI entre enero del 2012 y julio del 2021 para seleccionar el mejor tratamiento, incluyendo además Cirugía de reemplazo valvular aórtico (CRVA) y Tratamiento médico conservador (TMC). Resultados: De 841 pacientes, se asignaron a TAVI 455 (53%), CRVA 213 (24%) y TMC 183 (23%). El porcentaje asignado a TAVI aumentó con el tiempo de 48 a 62% (p < 0,05). Los pacientes que fueron a TAVI, con respecto a los enviados a CRVA, eran mayores (86 ± 7 vs 83 ± 7 años), con mayor EUROSCORE II (6,2, IC95% 5,7-6,6 vs 5,6, IC95% 4,4-6,5) y más frágiles (1,62 ± 1 vs 0,91 ± 1), en todos los casos p <0,01. La sobrevida actuarial (IC 95%) a 1 y a 2 años fue, para TAVI 88% (84-91%) y 82% (77-86%), para CRVA 83% (76-88%) y 78% (70-84%) y para TMC 70% (60-87%) y 59% (48-68%) respectivamente (p <0,001). Conclusiones: Durante los primeros 10 años de establecido un Heart Team para la toma de decisiones en EAo, se asignaron a TAVI aproximadamente la mitad y el resto se asignó por mitades a cirugía u observación. La sobrevida de los pacientes intervenidos fue similar a 2 años y mayor que la de los no intervenidos.
ABSTRACT As transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for aortic stenosis (AS) became widespread, the need for a Heart Team (HT) arose to choose the best treatment. There are few reports regarding its usefulness. Objectives: To analyze treatment outcomes in patients with AS evaluated by a HT for 10 years. Methods: Consecutive enrollment of all patients with AS who were candidates for TAVI between January 2012 and July 2021 to choose the best treatment, including surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and conservative medical management (CMM). Results: Out of 841 patients, 455 were assigned to TAVI (53%), 213 to SAVR (24%), and 183 to CMM (23%). The percentage assigned to TAVI has increased from 48% to 62% over time (p <0.05). Patients who underwent TAVI versus those who underwent SAVR were older (86 ± 7 vs. 83 ± 7 years), had a higher EUROSCORE II (6.2, 95% CI 5.7-6.6 vs. 5.6; 95% CI 4.4-6.5) and were frailer (1.62 ± 1 vs. 0.91 ± 1), in all cases p <0.01. Actuarial survival (95% CI) at 1 and 2 years was 88% (84-91%) and 82% (77-86%) for TAVI, 83% (76-88%) and 78% (70-84%) for SAVR, and 70% (60-87%) and 59% (48-68%) for CMM, respectively (p <0.001). Conclusions: For the first 10 years after a Heart Team was established for AS decision-making, approximately half of the patients were assigned to TAVI, and the rest were equally assigned in halves to either surgery or observation. Survival for patients who received interventions was similar at 2 years and higher than in those who did not.