Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Increased cardiovascular mortality in patients with mechanically expandable transcatheter aortic valve and without permanent pacemaker

P. Hájek, M. Horvath, E. Hansvenclova, M. Pecková, R. Adlova

. 2023 ; 10 (2) : . [pub] 20231214

Jazyk angličtina Země Anglie, Velká Británie

Typ dokumentu pozorovací studie, časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc24000241

INTRODUCTION: Use of the mechanically expandable transcatheter aortic valve (MEV) has been recently linked to increased risks of valve dysfunction and cardiovascular mortality. The risk of developing conduction disturbance with the MEV valve is well known, and the negative prognostic impact of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation is another consideration. AIM: This study aimed to compare the mid-term survival of patients with MEV and self-expandable valves (SEV), and to examine survival of both groups according to the presence or absence of PPI. METHODS: This single-centre, retrospective, observational study examined data from MEV and SEV groups comprising 92 and 373 patients, respectively. The mean clinical follow-up was 2.5±1.7 years. Mortality information was obtained from the National Institutes of Health Information and Statistics. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. The log-rank test showed higher cardiovascular mortality in the MEV group (p=0.042; the relative risk (RR) 1.594 (95% CI 1.013 to 2.508)). The Cox proportional hazards model identified MEV implantation as an independent predictor of cardiovascular mortality. The rate of PPI was twice as high in the MEV vs SEV group (33.7% vs 16.1%; p<0.001). We compared the survival of both groups according to the presence or absence of PPI and found higher mortality in the MEV group without PPI versus the SEV group without PPI (p=0.007; RR 2.156 (95% CI 1.213 to 3.831)). Survival did not differ in the groups with PPI. CONCLUSIONS: A higher mid-term cardiovascular mortality rate was observed with MEV versus SEV implants. Comparing both groups according to the presence or absence of PPI, we observed a higher mortality risk in patients with MEV without PPI than in SEV without PPI. In contrast, mortality did not differ between the groups when PPI was implanted.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc24000241
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20240213093030.0
007      
ta
008      
240109s2023 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1136/openhrt-2023-002386 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)38097364
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Hájek, Petr $u Department of Cardiology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic petr.hajek@fnmotol.cz $1 https://orcid.org/0000000300151071
245    10
$a Increased cardiovascular mortality in patients with mechanically expandable transcatheter aortic valve and without permanent pacemaker / $c P. Hájek, M. Horvath, E. Hansvenclova, M. Pecková, R. Adlova
520    9_
$a INTRODUCTION: Use of the mechanically expandable transcatheter aortic valve (MEV) has been recently linked to increased risks of valve dysfunction and cardiovascular mortality. The risk of developing conduction disturbance with the MEV valve is well known, and the negative prognostic impact of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation is another consideration. AIM: This study aimed to compare the mid-term survival of patients with MEV and self-expandable valves (SEV), and to examine survival of both groups according to the presence or absence of PPI. METHODS: This single-centre, retrospective, observational study examined data from MEV and SEV groups comprising 92 and 373 patients, respectively. The mean clinical follow-up was 2.5±1.7 years. Mortality information was obtained from the National Institutes of Health Information and Statistics. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. The log-rank test showed higher cardiovascular mortality in the MEV group (p=0.042; the relative risk (RR) 1.594 (95% CI 1.013 to 2.508)). The Cox proportional hazards model identified MEV implantation as an independent predictor of cardiovascular mortality. The rate of PPI was twice as high in the MEV vs SEV group (33.7% vs 16.1%; p<0.001). We compared the survival of both groups according to the presence or absence of PPI and found higher mortality in the MEV group without PPI versus the SEV group without PPI (p=0.007; RR 2.156 (95% CI 1.213 to 3.831)). Survival did not differ in the groups with PPI. CONCLUSIONS: A higher mid-term cardiovascular mortality rate was observed with MEV versus SEV implants. Comparing both groups according to the presence or absence of PPI, we observed a higher mortality risk in patients with MEV without PPI than in SEV without PPI. In contrast, mortality did not differ between the groups when PPI was implanted.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a aortální chlopeň $x diagnostické zobrazování $x chirurgie $7 D001021
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
650    12
$a aortální stenóza $x diagnostické zobrazování $x chirurgie $7 D001024
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
650    _2
$a rizikové faktory $7 D012307
650    12
$a kardiostimulátor $7 D010138
655    _2
$a pozorovací studie $7 D064888
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Horvath, Martin $u Department of Cardiology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Hansvenclova, Eva $u Department of Cardiology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Pecková, Monika $u Institute of Applied Mathematics and Information Technologies, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Adlova, Radka $u Department of Cardiology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00186378 $t Open heart $x 2053-3624 $g Roč. 10, č. 2 (2023)
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38097364 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20240109 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20240213093028 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2049114 $s 1209935
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2023 $b 10 $c 2 $e 20231214 $i 2053-3624 $m Open heart $n Open Heart $x MED00186378
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20240109

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...