ABSTRACT
Objective@#To investigate the impact of aortic root morphology on the implantation depth of aortic valve prosthesis during trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in bicuspid aortic valve patients.@*Methods@#Clinical data of 40 patients with native bicuspid aortic valve stenosis who underwent TAVR using the self-expandable prosthesis (the Venus A-valve) from 2014 to 2017 in Fuwai Hospital was retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into non-deep implantation group (implant depth ≤10 mm by instant angiogram after implantation,29 cases) and deep implantation group (implant depth> 10 mm by instant angiogram after implantation,11 cases).Pre-procedural aortic root characteristics (e.g. calcification, angle and dimensions) were assessed by CT. The impact of aortic root morphology on the implantation depth and clinical outcomes were also evaluated.@*Results@#The age was (75.1±5.9) years with equal representation from the raphe-type and non-raphe type (52.5%(21/40) and 47.5%(19/40)).The bigger aorta angle ((56.5±4.5)° vs. (47.4±9.4)°, P=0.004),more frequent mild-calcification (HU850, <200 mm3) or severe-calcification(HU850, >1 000 mm3) of aortic leaflets (7/11 vs. 4/29, P=0.006), as well as higher ratio of left ventricular outflow tract perimeter to annulus perimeter ((109.2±7.5)% vs. (101.5±6.5)%, P=0.004) were found in the deep implantation group compared to the non-deep implantation group. The new in-hospital onset of bundle-branchheart-block or atrioventricular block conduction disturbance rate was higher in the deep implantation group than in the non-deep implantation group (6/11 vs. 2/29, P=0.030).Left ventricular ejection fraction was similar between deep implantation group and non-deep implantation group at baseline((49.9±8.9)% vs. (55.8±10.4)%, P=0.117), and was significantly lower in the deep implantation group than in the non-deep implantation group at 30 days after implantation ((51.6±12.8)% vs. (60.9±8.1)%, P=0.020).@*Conclusion@#Aortic root morphology of bicuspid aortic valve patients is associated with implantation depth of the prosthesis during TAVR, which affects the conduction system and left ventricular function during and post TAVR.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To explore the cardiac function and outcomes in patients of aortic stenosis (AS) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) within 6 months in order to provide the guidance for clinical treatment. Methods: A total of 49 consecutive severe AS patients with surgical contradiction or STS high risk score and received successful TAVR in our hospital from 2013-12 to 2015-12 were studied. Echocardiography and blood levels of NT-proBNP were examined at pre- and 1 month, 6 months after TAVR. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), aortic valve mean gradient (MG), peak gradient (PG) and peak velocity (PV) were recorded. Based on pre-operative LVEF, the patients were divided into 2 groups: Cardiac dysfunction group, LVEF<50%,n=15 (30.6%) and Normal cardiac function group, LVEF≥50%, n=34 (69.4%). Post-operative cardiac function and blood levels of NT-proBNP were compared between 2 groups. Results: In all 49 patients, the following parameters were significantly improved within 7 days after TAVR: LVEF (56.0±14.6) % vs (52.5±13.8)%, MG (11±5) mmHg vs (58±18) mmHg, PG (21.7±9.5) mmHg vs (93.0±28.6) mmHg, PV (2.3±0.5) m/s vs (4.8±0.7) m/s, blood NT-proBNP level [1831 (1098-3363)] pg/ml vs [3842 (1763-8664)] pg/ml and aortic valve area (1.57±0.43) cm2 vs (0.58±0.23) cm2 allP<0.05. Within 6 months after TAVR, LVEF was continuously increasing especially in Cardiac dysfunction group; MG, PV and NT-proBNP level were continuously decreasing, NYHA grade was continuously improving, allP<0.05. Conclusion: TAVR was an effective treatment in AS patients with surgical contradiction or STS high risk score; it may continuously improve cardiac function, especially in patients with left heart dysfunction.
ABSTRACT
To explore the safety and efficacy of levosimendan in treating the patients with severe aortic stenosis and to analyze the cardial function before and after medication in order to guide clinical treatment. Methods: A total of 20 patients admitted in our hospital from 2014-01 to 2015-12 were enrolled with the standard of echocardiography confirmed severe aortic stenosis, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)≤45%, NYHA III-IV and inefficacy for conventional anti-heart failure drug therapy. The patients received intravenous infusion of levosimendan at 0.1μg/(kg·min) by persistent pumping for 24 hours. Echocardiography, LVEF, dyspnea condition, NYHA grading and plasma levels of NT-proBNP were recorded pre- and post-medication to compare the cardiac function and symptoms of levosimendan therapy. Results: After levosimendan treatment, NYHA grade was improved, P=0.025 and NT-proBNP was reduced (9101.6±7368.0) pg/mLvs (13776.5±9503.7) pg/mL, P=0.018. The following parameters were similar before and after levosimendan therapy: LVEF (31.1±7.5)% vs (33.1±8.5)%, P=0.078, the average heart rate (79.6±13.8) bmp vs (82.8±9.5)bmp, P=0.200 and systolic blood pressure (99.6±11.7) mmHg vs (97.2±12.1) mmHg, P=0.071. There were 40% (8/20) patients with obviously improved and 50% (10/20) with improved dyspnea symptoms after levosimendan treatment. Conclusion: Our preliminary study presented that levosimendan could improve NYHA grading, remit dyspnea symptom and reduce blood NT-proBNP level in patients with severe aortic stenosis and heart failure; it had safety and tolerability at certain degree in clinical practice.
ABSTRACT
Objective@#To compare the outcome of surgical high-risk elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis(SAS) treated by different therapy procedures, including transcatheter aortic valve implantation(TAVI), surgical aortic valve replacement(SAVR), and drug therapy.@*Methods@#We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 242 surgical high-risk elderly (age ≥65 years old) SAS patients hospitalized in Fuwai Hospital between September 2012 and June 2015. According to the treatment method, patients were divided into TAVI group (81 cases), SAVR group (59 cases) and drug therapy group (102 cases). The primary end point was all-cause mortality at 1 year post procedure, and secondary end point included cardiac function class(NYHA), vascular complication, valvular function, non-fatal myocardial infarction, new atrial fibrillation, stroke, bleeding, pacemaker implantation, acute renal failure, and readmission. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate survival function based on follow up data and survival was compared between groups with the use of the log-rank test.@*Results@#(1) In the baseline data, there were statistically significant difference among 3 groups for the age, left ventricular ejection fraction, cardiac function class Ⅲ and Ⅳ, rates of combined diabetes, chronic renal failure, mild and moderate mitral regurgitation (P<0.01 or 0.05). The risk score of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons(STS) was 7.28±4.98 in the TAVI group, and 5.67±3.49 in the SAVR group(P=0.036). (2) The perioperative rates of pacemaker implantation(11.3%(9/81) vs. 0, P=0.025) and mild paravalvular regurgitation(29.6%(24/81) vs.1.7%(1/59), P<0.001) were significantly higher in TAVI group than in SAVR group.(3)The rate of rehospitalization was significantly lower in TAVI group than in SAVR group(3.0%(2/67) vs. 22.7%(10/44) P=0.005) and the rate of pacemaker implantation was significantly higher in TAVI group than in SAVR group(17.5 (12/67) vs. 0, P=0.008) after 1 year. The rates of death from any cause in the TAVI (5.8%(4/67)) and SAVR group (11.4%(5/44)) were significantly lower than that in the drug therapy group (54.9%(50/91), both P<0.05) after 1 year and was similar between TAVI group and SAVR group(P=0.622). (4) The rates of cardiac function classⅠandⅡ increased and Ⅲ and Ⅳ decreased in TAVI and SAVR group after 1 year when compared with base line(P<0.001). The rates of cardiac function class Ⅱ, and Ⅲ increased , class Ⅰ and Ⅳ decreased in drug therapy group after 1 year compared with base line (P=0.020). (5)The survival rates after 1 year were significantly higher in the TAVI group and SAVR group than in the drug therapy group(log-rank test, P<0.001), and the difference was similar between TAVI group and SAVR group (log-rank test, P=0.062).@*Conclusion@#In surgical high-risk elderly patients with SAS, the prognosis of drug therapy was poor, and TAVI and SAVR were associated with similarly improved rates of survival after 1 year, although there were significant differences in periprocedural complications between TAVI and SAVR groups.
ABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To explore the procedural feasibility and early clinical outcomes of percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty (PBAV) in patients with severe aortic stenosis, who were considered transiently unsuitable for surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Between March 2011 and January 2014, datas of 20 patients underwent PBAV in Fuwai Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Mean patients age was (72 ± 8) years.Initial procedural and clinical outcomes were evaluated.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>PBAV was successfully performed in all cases. Post-procedure, aortic valve area increased from (0.55 ± 0.09) m(2) to (0.77 ± 0.15) m(2)(P < 0.001), left ventricle ejection fraction from (31.7 ± 9.0) % to (39.0 ± 11.0) % (P = 0.018), mean transaortic valve gradient decreased from (49.5 ± 15.0) mmHg (1 mmHg = 0.133 kPa) to (31.7 ± 12.0) mmHg (P < 0.001), and pulmonary artery systolic pressure decreased from (55.1 ± 18.0) mmHg to (38.7 ± 11.0) mmHg (P = 0.025) . There was no significant change in the aortic regurgitation grade (P = 0.854). The most common complications were hypotension (n = 4) and transient left bundle branch block (n = 5). Overall 24-hour and 30-day mortality was 5% (n = 1) and 15% (n = 3), respectively. Within 30 days after PBAV procedure, five patients underwent successful sAVR, one patient underwent TAVR, and five patients awaited TAVR.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>In high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis and temporary contraindication to sAVR or TAVR, PBAV can be safely used as a bridging intervention procedure and the short-term procedural and clinic outcomes are satisfactory.</p>