999 resultados para Severe aortic stenosis
Resumo:
Objectives: To evaluate clinical and echocardiographic variables that could be used to predict outcomes in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis. Management of asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis is controversial. Because prophylactic surgery may be protective, independent predictors of events that could justify early surgery have been sought. Methods: Outpatients (n= 133; mean [+/- SD] age, 66.2 +/- 13.6 years) with isolated severe asymptomatic aortic stenosis but normal left ventricular function and no previous myocardial infarction were followed up prospectively at a tertiary care hospital. Interventions: We use a ""wait-for-events"" strategy. Clinical and echocardiographic variables were analyzed. Results: Nineteen patients developed angina; 40, dyspnea; 5, syncope; and 7, sudden death during a mean follow-up period of 3.30 +/- 1.87 years. Event-free survival was 90.2 +/- 2.6% at 1 year, 73.4 +/-.9% at 2 years, 70.7 +/- 4.3% at 3 years, 57.8 +/- 4.7% at 4 years, 40.3 +/- 5.0% at 5 years, and 33.3 +/- 5.2% at 6 years. The mean follow-up period until sudden death (1.32 +/- 1.11 years) was shorter than that for dyspnea (2.44 +/- 1.84 years), syncope (2.87 +/- 1.26 years) and angina (3.03 +/- 1.68 years). Cox regression analysis disclosed only reduced but within normal limits ejection fraction as independent predictor of total events. Conclusions: Management on ""wait-for-events"" strategy is generally safe. Progressive left ventricular ejection fraction reduction even within normal limits identified patients at high risk for events in whom valve replacement surgery should be considered. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVE To study the factors associated with choice of therapy and prognosis in octogenarians with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). STUDY DESIGN Prospective, observational, multicenter registry. Centralized follow-up included survival status and, if possible, mode of death and Katz index. SETTING Transnational registry in Spain. SUBJECTS We included 928 patients aged ≥80 years with severe symptomatic AS. INTERVENTIONS Aortic-valve replacement (AVR), transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) or conservative therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES All-cause death. RESULTS Mean age was 84.2 ± 3.5 years, and only 49.0% were independent (Katz index A). The most frequent planned management was conservative therapy in 423 (46%) patients, followed by TAVI in 261 (28%) and AVR in 244 (26%). The main reason against recommending AVR in 684 patients was high surgical risk [322 (47.1%)], other medical motives [193 (28.2%)], patient refusal [134 (19.6%)] and family refusal in the case of incompetent patients [35 (5.1%)]. The mean time from treatment decision to AVR was 4.8 ± 4.6 months and to TAVI 2.1 ± 3.2 months, P < 0.001. During follow-up (11.2-38.9 months), 357 patients (38.5%) died. Survival rates at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months were 81.8%, 72.6%, 64.1% and 57.3%, respectively. Planned intervention, adjusted for multiple propensity score, was associated with lower mortality when compared with planned conservative treatment: TAVI Hazard ratio (HR) 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.93; P = 0.016) and AVR HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.39-0.8; P = 0.002). CONCLUSION Octogenarians with symptomatic severe AS are frequently managed conservatively. Planned conservative management is associated with a poor prognosis.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVE To study the factors associated with choice of therapy and prognosis in octogenarians with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). STUDY DESIGN Prospective, observational, multicenter registry. Centralized follow-up included survival status and, if possible, mode of death and Katz index. SETTING Transnational registry in Spain. SUBJECTS We included 928 patients aged ≥80 years with severe symptomatic AS. INTERVENTIONS Aortic-valve replacement (AVR), transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) or conservative therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES All-cause death. RESULTS Mean age was 84.2 ± 3.5 years, and only 49.0% were independent (Katz index A). The most frequent planned management was conservative therapy in 423 (46%) patients, followed by TAVI in 261 (28%) and AVR in 244 (26%). The main reason against recommending AVR in 684 patients was high surgical risk [322 (47.1%)], other medical motives [193 (28.2%)], patient refusal [134 (19.6%)] and family refusal in the case of incompetent patients [35 (5.1%)]. The mean time from treatment decision to AVR was 4.8 ± 4.6 months and to TAVI 2.1 ± 3.2 months, P < 0.001. During follow-up (11.2-38.9 months), 357 patients (38.5%) died. Survival rates at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months were 81.8%, 72.6%, 64.1% and 57.3%, respectively. Planned intervention, adjusted for multiple propensity score, was associated with lower mortality when compared with planned conservative treatment: TAVI Hazard ratio (HR) 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.93; P = 0.016) and AVR HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.39-0.8; P = 0.002). CONCLUSION Octogenarians with symptomatic severe AS are frequently managed conservatively. Planned conservative management is associated with a poor prognosis.
Resumo:
Background and aim of the study: The natriuretic peptides, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and its N-terminal prohormone (NT-proBNP), can be used as diagnostic and prognostic markers for aortic stenosis (AS). However, the association between BNP, NT-proBNP, and long-term clinical outcomes in patients with severe AS remains uncertain. Methods: A total of 64 patients with severe AS was prospectively enrolled into the study, and underwent clinical and echocardiographic assessments at baseline. Blood samples were drawn for plasma BNP and NT-proBNP analyses. The primary outcome was death from any cause, through a six-year follow up period. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to examine the association between natriuretic peptides and long-term mortality, adjusting for important clinical factors. Results: During a mean period of 1,520 681 days, 51 patients (80%) were submitted to aortic valve replacement, and 13 patients (20%) were medically managed without surgical interventions. Mortality rates were 13.7% in the surgical group and 62% in the medically managed group (p <0.001). Patients with higher plasma BNP (>135 pg/ml) and NT-proBNP (>1,150 pg/ml) levels at baseline had a greater risk of long-term mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 3.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-9.1; HR 4.3, 95% CI 1.4-13.5, respectively). After adjusting for important covariates, both BNP and NT-proBNP remained independently associated with long-term mortality (HR 2.9, 95%CI 1.5-5.7; HR 1.8, 95%CI 1.1-3.1, respectively). Conclusion: In patients with severe AS, plasma BNP and NT-proBNP levels were associated with long-term mortality. The use of these biomarkers to guide treatment might represent an interesting approach that deserves further evaluation. The Journal of Heart Valve Disease 2012;21:331-336
Resumo:
We sought to assess the outcome of asymptomatic patients with very severe aortic stenosis.
Resumo:
Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the role of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared with medical treatment (MT) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at increased surgical risk. Background Elderly patients with comorbidities are at considerable risk for SAVR. Methods Since July 2007, 442 patients with severe AS (age: 81.7 ± 6.0 years, mean logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation: 22.3 ± 14.6%) underwent treatment allocation to MT (n = 78), SAVR (n = 107), or TAVI (n = 257) on the basis of a comprehensive evaluation protocol as part of a prospective registry. Results Baseline clinical characteristics were similar among patients allocated to MT and TAVI, whereas patients allocated to SAVR were younger (p < 0.001) and had a lower predicted peri-operative risk (p < 0.001). Unadjusted rates of all-cause mortality at 30 months were lower for SAVR (22.4%) and TAVI (22.6%) compared with MT (61.5%, p < 0.001). Adjusted hazard ratios for death were 0.51 (95% confidence interval: 0.30 to 0.87) for SAVR compared with MT and 0.38 (95% confidence interval: 0.25 to 0.58) for TAVI compared with MT. Medical treatment (<0.001), older age (>80 years, p = 0.01), peripheral vascular disease (<0.001), and atrial fibrillation (p = 0.04) were significantly associated with all-cause mortality at 30 months in the multivariate analysis. At 1 year, more patients undergoing SAVR (92.3%) or TAVI (93.2%) had New York Heart Association functional class I/II as compared with patients with MT (70.8%, p = 0.003). Conclusions Among patients with severe AS with increased surgical risk, SAVR and TAVI improve survival and symptoms compared with MT. Clinical outcomes of TAVI and SAVR seem similar among carefully selected patients with severe symptomatic AS at increased risk.
Resumo:
Introduction Reduced left ventricular function in patients with severe symptomatic valvular aortic stenosis is associated with impaired clinical outcome in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) has been shown non-inferior to SAVR in high-risk patients with respect to mortality and may result in faster left ventricular recovery. Methods We investigated clinical outcomes of high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing medical treatment (n = 71) or TAVI (n = 256) stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in a prospective single center registry. Results Twenty-five patients (35%) among the medical cohort were found to have an LVEF≤30% (mean 26.7±4.1%) and 37 patients (14%) among the TAVI patients (mean 25.2±4.4%). Estimated peri-interventional risk as assessed by logistic EuroSCORE was significantly higher in patients with severely impaired LVEF as compared to patients with LVEF>30% (medical/TAVI 38.5±13.8%/40.6±16.4% versus medical/TAVI 22.5±10.8%/22.1±12.8%, p <0.001). In patients undergoing TAVI, there was no significant difference in the combined endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, major stroke, life-threatening bleeding, major access-site complications, valvular re-intervention, or renal failure at 30 days between the two groups (21.0% versus 27.0%, p = 0.40). After TAVI, patients with LVEF≤30% experienced a rapid improvement in LVEF (from 25±4% to 34±10% at discharge, p = 0.002) associated with improved NYHA functional class at 30 days (decrease ≥1 NYHA class in 95%). During long-term follow-up no difference in survival was observed in patients undergoing TAVI irrespective of baseline LVEF (p = 0.29), whereas there was a significantly higher mortality in medically treated patients with severely reduced LVEF (log rank p = 0.001). Conclusion TAVI in patients with severely reduced left ventricular function may be performed safely and is associated with rapid recovery of systolic left ventricular function and heart failure symptoms.
Resumo:
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is frequently present in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). While revascularisation affects peri-operative outcome in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement, the impact of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients undergoing TAVI is not well established.
Resumo:
Patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk continue to experience compromised long-term survival despite successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation. We used time-related pathways in a multistate analysis to identify predictors of adverse long-term outcome in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
Resumo:
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) and a high operative risk. Risk stratification plays a decisive role in the optimal selection of therapeutic strategies for AS patients. The accuracy of contemporary surgical risk algorithms for AS patients has spurred considerable debate especially in the higher risk patient population. Future trials will explore TAVI in patients at intermediate operative risk. During the design of the SURgical replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (SURTAVI) trial, a novel concept of risk stratification was proposed based upon age in combination with a fixed number of predefined risk factors, which are relatively prevalent, easy to capture and with a reasonable impact on operative mortality. Retrospective application of this algorithm to a contemporary academic practice dealing with clinically significant AS patients allocates about one-fourth of these patients as being at intermediate operative risk. Further testing is required for validation of this new paradigm in risk stratification. Finally, the Heart Team, consisting of at least an interventional cardiologist and cardiothoracic surgeon, should have the decisive role in determining whether a patient could be treated with TAVI or SAVR.
Resumo:
The aim of this study was to characterize aortic root dimensions of patients with aortic valve stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and to evaluate sex differences.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine both the procedural performance and safety of percutaneous implantation of the second (21-French [F])- and third (18-F)-generation CoreValve aortic valve prosthesis (CoreValve Inc., Irvine, California). BACKGROUND: Percutaneous aortic valve replacement represents an emerging alternative therapy for high-risk and inoperable patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. METHODS: Patients with: 1) symptomatic, severe aortic valve stenosis (area <1 cm2); 2) age > or =80 years with a logistic EuroSCORE > or =20% (21-F group) or age > or =75 years with a logistic EuroSCORE > or =15% (18-F group); or 3) age > or =65 years plus additional prespecified risk factors were included. Introduction of the 18-F device enabled the transition from a multidisciplinary approach involving general anesthesia, surgical cut-down, and cardiopulmonary bypass to a truly percutaneous approach under local anesthesia without hemodynamic support. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients (21-F, n = 50; 18-F, n = 36) with a mean valve area of 0.66 +/- 0.19 cm2 (21-F) and 0.54 +/- 0.15 cm2 (18-F), a mean age of 81.3 +/- 5.2 years (21-F) and 83.4 +/- 6.7 years (18-F), and a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 23.4 +/- 13.5% (21-F) and 19.1 +/- 11.1% (18-F) were recruited. Acute device success was 88%. Successful device implantation resulted in a marked reduction of aortic transvalvular gradients (mean pre 43.7 mm Hg vs. post 9.0 mm Hg, p < 0.001) with aortic regurgitation grade remaining unchanged. Acute procedural success rate was 74% (21-F: 78%; 18-F: 69%). Procedural mortality was 6%. Overall 30-day mortality rate was 12%; the combined rate of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction was 22%. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis in high-risk patients with percutaneous implantation of the CoreValve prosthesis is feasible and associated with a lower mortality rate than predicted by risk algorithms.
Resumo:
AIMS Our aim was to evaluate the invasive haemodynamic indices of high-risk symptomatic patients presenting with 'paradoxical' low-flow, low-gradient, severe aortic stenosis (AS) (PLF-LG) and low-flow, low-gradient severe AS (LEF-LG) and to compare clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) among these challenging AS subgroups. METHODS AND RESULTS Of 534 symptomatic patients undergoing TAVI, 385 had a full pre-procedural right and left heart catheterization. A total of 208 patients had high-gradient severe AS [HGAS; mean gradient (MG) ≥40 mmHg], 85 had PLF-LG [MG ≤ 40 mmHg, indexed aortic valve area [iAVA] ≤0.6 cm(2) m(-2), stroke volume index ≤35 mL/m(2), ejection fraction (EF) ≥50%], and 61 had LEF-LG (MG ≤ 40 mmHg, iAVA ≤0.6 cm(2) m(-2), EF ≤40%). Compared with HGAS, PLF-LG and LEF-LG had higher systemic vascular resistances (HGAS: 1912 ± 654 vs. PLF-LG 2006 ± 586 vs. LEF-LG 2216 ± 765 dyne s m(-5), P = 0.007) but lower valvulo-arterial impedances (HGAS: 7.8 ± 2.7 vs. PLF-LG 6.9 ± 1.9 vs. LEF-LG 7.7 ± 2.5 mmHg mL(-1) m(-2), P = 0.027). At 30 days, no differences in cardiac death (6.5 vs. 4.9 vs. 6.6%, P = 0.90) or death (8.4 vs. 6.1 vs. 6.6%, P = 0.88) were observed among HGAS, PLF-LG, and LEF-LG groups, respectively. At 1 year, New York Heart Association functional improvement occurred in most surviving patients (HGAS: 69.2% vs. PLF-LG 71.7% vs. LEF-LG 89.3%, P = 0.09) and no significant differences in overall mortality were observed (17.6 vs. 20.5 vs. 24.5%, P = 0.67). Compared with HGAS, LEF-LG had a higher 1 year cardiac mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 2.45, 95% confidence interval 1.04-5.75, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION TAVI in PLF-LG or LEF-LG patients is associated with overall mortality rates comparable with HGAS patients and all groups profit symptomatically to a similar extent.
Resumo:
Coronary artery disease (CAD) and aortic stenosis (AS) share pathophysiological mechanisms and risk factors. Moreover, the prevalence of CAD increases among elderly patients with severe AS since disease progression is strongly associated with age for both CAD and AS. These factors contribute to the frequent coexistence of CAD and AS. Patients with concomitant AS and CAD are characterised by higher baseline risk profiles with a larger number of comorbidities as compared to patients with isolated AS. Therefore, adequate therapeutic strategies are crucial for the treatment of these patients. The number of patients undergoing concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) doubled during the last decade. Moreover, the development and rapid integration of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) into clinical practice in western European countries has further extended invasive treatment of AS to elderly high-risk patients not considered suitable candidates for SAVR, frequently presenting with CAD. The aim of this review article is to provide an overview on CAD prevalence, impact on clinical outcomes, and treatment strategies in patients with severe AS requiring SAVR or TAVI.