Short-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Pure Severe Aortic Regurgitation.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an alternative treatment for patients with pure severe aortic regurgitation (PSAR) who are contraindicated for surgery or have a high surgical risk. However, the therapeutic efficacy and safety of TAVR in low Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score risk patients remain to be clarified. This study aimed to explore the feasibility of TAVR treatment in different STS-risk patients and to compare the adverse events between the groups. In this study, patients with PSAR who underwent TAVR at Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, China, during the inclusion period were included and categorized into 3 groups based on STS scores. The baseline data, imaging results, and follow-up data of the patients were documented. Therefore, of 75 TAVR patients, 38 (50.7%) were categorized as low risk (STS <4), and 37 (49.3%) patients were categorized as intermediate and high risk (STS ≥4). Compared with patients at intermediate and high risk, those in the low-risk group were younger, had a lower body mass index, had a lower prevalence of hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and previous percutaneous coronary intervention, and had better cardiac function (p all <0.05). In the hospital and at the 1-month follow-up, the degree of aortic regurgitation and cardiac function were significantly improved. No significant difference was found between the 2 groups in the hospital or during the 30-day follow-up. In conclusion, TAVR for PSAR in low-STS-risk patients is safe and efficient during 30 days of follow-up compared with intermediate- and high-STS-risk groups. TAVR for PSAR should not be limited to inoperable or STS-defined high-risk patients. Long-term follow-up is needed for further investigation.

Surgical resection versus radiofrequency ablation for primary hepatocellular carcinoma of 3-5 cm in diameter: a meta-analysis / 浙江大学学报·医学版

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To compare the therapeutic effects of surgical hepatic resection (HR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in treatment of primary hepatocellular carcinoma of 3-5 cm in diameter.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>The databases PubMed, CBMdisc, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were searched for controlled clinical trials on evaluating the efficacy between RFA and HR in treatment of primary hepatocellular carcinoma of 3-5 cm in diameter published from January 1990 to February 2014. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality of the studies included. Then the meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan5.0 software.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Eleven controlled clinical trials were included, including one randomized controlled trial and 10 non-randomized controlled trials. A total of 811 patients were involved: 404 patients were treated with RFA as the initial treatment and 407 patients with surgical resection. Meta-analysis showed that for a single lesion with diameter of 3-5 cm of primary hepatocellular carcinoma, the 3-， 5-year disease-free survival rates in HR group was significantly higher than those in RFA group (all P<0.05). There were no significant difference in the 1-， 3-， 5-year overall survival rates and 1-year disease-free survival rate between RFA group and HR group (P>0.05). For 1-2 nodules with diameters of 3-5 cm of primary hepatocellular carcinoma, the 3-， 5-year disease-free survival rates and 5-year overall survival rates in HR group was significantly higher than those in RFA group (all P<0.05). No significant difference in 1-， 3-year overall survival rates and 1-year disease-free survival rate was found between RFA group and HR group (P>0.05). For maximum nodule of 3-5 cm of multiple primary hepatocellular carcinoma, the 5-year overall survival rates in HR group was significantly higher than that in RFA group (all P<0.05). No significant difference in 1-， 5-year overall survival rates was noted between RFA group and HR group (P>0.05).</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>For primary hepatocellular carcinoma of 3-5 cm in diameter, HR is better than RFA. For the limitation of quality and quantity of included studies, this conclusion needs to be confirmed by more high quality studies.</p>