Resultados intrahospitalarios tras tratamiento percutáneo frente a quirúrgico en pacientes con estenosis aórtica y enfermedad arterial coronaria concomitante / In-hospital outcomes following percutaneous versus surgical intervention in the treatment of aortic stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease

Introducción y objetivos: La enfermedad coronaria (EC) es frecuente en pacientes con estenosis aórtica; sin embargo, la estrategia terapéutica óptima sigue siendo objeto de debate. Investigamos los resultados periprocedimiento en pacientes sometidos a implante percutáneo de válvula aórtica con intervención coronaria percutánea (TAVI/ICP) frente al recambio valvular aórtico con injerto de derivación de arteria coronaria (RVAo/CABG) en pacientes con estenosis aórtica con EC.Métodos: Con los datos de alta del Sistema Nacional de Salud Español, se identificaron 6.194 pacientes (5.217 RVAo/CABG y 977 TAVI/ICP) entre 2016 y 2019. Se realizó un análisis emparejado por puntuación de propensión ajustado por características basales. El objetivo primario fue la mortalidad hospitalaria, Los objetivos secundarios fueron las complicaciones hospitalarias y rehospitalización cardiovascular a 30 días.Resultados: Tras el emparejamiento, se seleccionaron 774 parejas de pacientes. La mortalidad total hospitalaria fue más frecuente en el grupo quirúrgico (3,4 frente a 9,4%, p <0,001), al igual que el ictus periprocedimiento (0,9 frente a 2,2%, p=0,004), fallo renal agudo (4,3 frente a 16,0%, p <0,002), transfusión (9,6 frente a 21,1%, p <0,001) y neumonía intrahospitalaria (0,1 frente a 1,7%, p=0,001). La implantación de marcapasos permanente fue más frecuente en el tratamiento percutáneo (12,0 frente a 5,7%, p <0,001). Los centros de menor volumen (< 130 procedimientos por año) tuvieron mayor mortalidad hospitalaria para ambos procedimientos: TAVI/ICP (3,6 frente a 2,9%, p <0,001) y RVAo/CABG (9,3 frente a 6,8%, p <0,001). La rehospitalización cardiovascular a 30 días no difirió entre los grupos.(AU)

Introduction and objectives: Concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) is prevalent among aortic stenosis patients; however the optimal therapeutic strategy remains debated. We investigated periprocedural outcomes among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with percutaneous coronary intervention (TAVI/PCI) vs surgical aortic valve replacement with coronary artery bypass grafting (SAVR/CABG) for aortic stenosis with CAD.Methods: Using discharge data from the Spanish National Health System, we identified 6194 patients (5217 SAVR/CABG and 977 TAVI/PCI) between 2016 and 2019. Propensity score matching was adjusted for baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital complications and 30-day cardiovascular readmission.Results: Matching resulted in 774 pairs. In-hospital all-cause mortality was more common in the SAVR/CABG group (3.4% vs 9.4%, P <.001) as was periprocedural stroke (0.9% vs 2.2%; P=.004), acute kidney injury (4.3% vs 16.0%, P <.001), blood transfusion (9.6% vs 21.1%, P <.001), and hospital-acquired pneumonia (0.1% vs 1.7%, P=.001). Permanent pacemaker implantation was higher for matched TAVI/PCI (12.0% vs 5.7%, P <.001). Lower volume centers (< 130 procedures/y) had higher in-hospital all-cause mortality for both procedures: TAVI/PCI (3.6% vs 2.9%, P <.001) and SAVR/CABG (8.3 vs 6.8%, P <.001). Thirty-day cardiovascular readmission did not differ between groups.Conclusions: In this large contemporary nationwide study, percutaneous management of aortic stenosis and CAD with TAVI/PCI had lower in-hospital mortality and morbidity than surgical intervention. Higher volume centers had less in-hospital mortality in both groups. Dedicated national high-volume heart centers warrant further investigation.(AU)

In-hospital outcomes following percutaneous versus surgical intervention in the treatment of aortic stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) is prevalent among aortic stenosis patients; however the optimal therapeutic strategy remains debated. We investigated periprocedural outcomes among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with percutaneous coronary intervention (TAVI/PCI) vs surgical aortic valve replacement with coronary artery bypass grafting (SAVR/CABG) for aortic stenosis with CAD. METHODS: Using discharge data from the Spanish National Health System, we identified 6194 patients (5217 SAVR/CABG and 977 TAVI/PCI) between 2016 and 2019. Propensity score matching was adjusted for baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital complications and 30-day cardiovascular readmission. RESULTS: Matching resulted in 774 pairs. In-hospital all-cause mortality was more common in the SAVR/CABG group (3.4% vs 9.4%, P <.001) as was periprocedural stroke (0.9% vs 2.2%; P=.004), acute kidney injury (4.3% vs 16.0%, P <.001), blood transfusion (9.6% vs 21.1%, P <.001), and hospital-acquired pneumonia (0.1% vs 1.7%, P=.001). Permanent pacemaker implantation was higher for matched TAVI/PCI (12.0% vs 5.7%, P <.001). Lower volume centers (< 130 procedures/y) had higher in-hospital all-cause mortality for both procedures: TAVI/PCI (3.6% vs 2.9%, P <.001) and SAVR/CABG (8.3 vs 6.8%, P <.001). Thirty-day cardiovascular readmission did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this large contemporary nationwide study, percutaneous management of aortic stenosis and CAD with TAVI/PCI had lower in-hospital mortality and morbidity than surgical intervention. Higher volume centers had less in-hospital mortality in both groups. Dedicated national high-volume heart centers warrant further investigation.

Esperanza de vida después del recambio valvular debido a estenosis aórtica de bajo gradiente con función ventricular conservada / Life expectancy after surgical aortic valve replacement for low-gradient aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction

Introducción y objetivos: El recambio valvular aórtico (RVAo) quirúrgico puede modificar la historia natural de la estenosis aórtica grave (EAoG). Sin embargo, comparado con la población general, estos pacientes tienen una pérdida en su esperanza de vida. La esperanza de vida de los pacientes intervenidos de RVAo debido a EAoG de bajo gradiente con fracción de eyección del ventrículo izquierdo (FEVI) conservada se desconoce. Métodos: Se incluyó a todos los pacientes entre 50 y 65 años sometidos a RVAo quirúrgico aislado en 27 centros durante 18 años. Analizamos la supervivencia observada y esperada a los 18 años de pacientes con EAoG de bajo gradiente con FEVI conservada y todos los otros tipos de EAoG. Mediante emparejamiento basado en índice de propensión, comparamos la esperanza de vida de los pacientes con EAoG de bajo gradiente con FEVI conservada vs EAoG de alto gradiente con FEVI conservada. Resultados: Se analizó a 5.084 pacientes, 413 con EAoG de bajo gradiente con FEVI conservada. En estos pacientes, la supervivencia observada a 10, 15 y 18 años fue 86,6% (IC95%, 85,3-87,8), 75% (IC95%, 72,7-77,2) y 63,5% (IC95%, 58,8-67,8). La supervivencia esperada a 10, 15 y 18 años fue 90,2%, 82,1% y 75,7%. En la muestra emparejada, la supervivencia de los pacientes con EAoG de bajo gradiente con FEVI conservada fue similar a la de aquellos con EAoG de alto gradiente con FEVI conservada, test de log-rank p=0,95, HR=1 (IC95%, 0,7–1,4; p=0,95). Conclusiones: Existe una pérdida en la esperanza de vida en todos los tipos de EAoG después del RVAo. Esta pérdida es mayor en los pacientes con disfunción ventricular y menor en los pacientes con EAoG de bajo gradiente o alto gradiente con FEVI conservada. El beneficio de la cirugía es similar entre estos 2 últimos grupos.(AU)

Introduction and objectives: Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) can modify the natural history of severe aortic stenosis (SAS). However, compared with the general population, these patients have a loss of life expectancy. The life expectancy of patients who undergo SAVR due to low-gradient SAS with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is unknown. Methods: We included all patients between 50 and 65 years who underwent isolated SAVR in 27 Spanish centers during an 18-year period. We analyzed observed and expected survival at 18 years in patients with low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF and all other types of SAS. We used propensity score matching to compare the life expectancy of patients with low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF vs those with high-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF. Results: We analyzed 5084 patients, of whom 413 had low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF. For these patients, observed survival at 10, 15 and 18 years was 86.6% (95%CI, 85.3-87.8), 75% (95%CI, 72.7-77.2), and 63.5% (95%CI, 58.8-67.8). Expected survival at 10, 15 and 18 years was 90.2%, 82.1%, and 75.7%. In the matched sample, survival of patients with low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF was similar to that of patients with high-gradient with preserved LVEF, log-rank test, P=.95; HR=1 (95%CI, 0.7–1.4; P=.95). Conclusions: There is a loss of life expectancy in patients with all types of SAS undergoing SAVR. This loss is higher in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and lower in patients with low-gradient or high-gradient aortic stenosis with preserved LVEF. The benefit of surgery is similar between these last 2 groups.(AU)

Life expectancy after surgical aortic valve replacement for low-gradient aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) can modify the natural history of severe aortic stenosis (SAS). However, compared with the general population, these patients have a loss of life expectancy. The life expectancy of patients who undergo SAVR due to low-gradient SAS with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is unknown. METHODS: We included all patients between 50 and 65 years who underwent isolated SAVR in 27 Spanish centers during an 18-year period. We analyzed observed and expected survival at 18 years in patients with low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF and all other types of SAS. We used propensity score matching to compare the life expectancy of patients with low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF vs those with high-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF. RESULTS: We analyzed 5084 patients, of whom 413 had low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF. For these patients, observed survival at 10, 15 and 18 years was 86.6% (95%CI, 85.3-87.8), 75% (95%CI, 72.7-77.2), and 63.5% (95%CI, 58.8-67.8). Expected survival at 10, 15 and 18 years was 90.2%, 82.1%, and 75.7%. In the matched sample, survival of patients with low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF was similar to that of patients with high-gradient with preserved LVEF, log-rank test, P=.95; HR=1 (95%CI, 0.7-1.4; P=.95). CONCLUSIONS: There is a loss of life expectancy in patients with all types of SAS undergoing SAVR. This loss is higher in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and lower in patients with low-gradient or high-gradient aortic stenosis with preserved LVEF. The benefit of surgery is similar between these last 2 groups.

Real Structural Valve Deterioration of the Mitroflow Aortic Prosthesis: Competing Risk Analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The Mitroflow aortic prosthesis is a bovine pericardial bioprosthesis specially designed to increase the valve area in relation to its size. There is controversy regarding the pattern of structural valve deterioration (SVD). Our aim was to determine the cumulative incidence of SVD, risk factors influencing its occurrence, and its impact on mortality. METHODS: A total of 1028 patients were clinically and echocardiographically followed up. Because the study population was elderly and had heart disease, we used a competing risk analysis. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with SVD at 5 years was 4.22% (95%CI, 2.96-5.81) and was 15.77% at 8 years (95%CI, 12.46-19.43). The incidence was higher for small valves (19mm and 21mm) reaching 6.43% at 5 years (95%CI, 4.48-8.84) and 20.06% at 8 years (95%CI, 15.53-25.01). Severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) influenced the incidence of SVD (sHR, 3.53; 95%CI, 2.20-5.66; P < .001) but moderate PPM had no impact. The most powerful predictor of mortality was the presence of SVD (HR, 4.59; 95%CI, 2.91-7.22; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study used a definition based on the increase in the transprosthetic gradient and found a higher incidence of SVD of the Mitroflow prosthesis than that reported by other series, especially for sizes 19mm and 21mm and in patients with severe PPM. The incidence of SVD increased exponentially from the fifth year after implantation and its occurrence led to a 4.5-fold increase in the risk of death.