Diabetes is associated with a higher incidence of short-term mortality risk and readmission in patients who undergo surgical but not transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly used for aortic valve replacement instead of surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR). We aimed to examine the impact of diabetes on 30-day mortality, 30-day readmission and compare outcomes between TAVR and sAVR.
Data were extracted from the Nationwide Readmissions Database from 2012 to 2017. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality, and the secondary outcome was 30-day readmission.
The study included 110 135 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement. Of these, 59 466 (54.0%) were hospitalised for TAVR, and 50 669 (46.0%) underwent sAVR. Diabetes was present in 36.4% of TAVR patients and 29.1% of sAVR patients. In TAVR patients, the adjusted risk of 30-day readmission and mortality was similar regardless of diabetes status (aHR=0.94 (0.86-1.03); 0.97 (0.84-1.12); respectively). However, sAVR patients with diabetes had a higher adjusted risk of 30-day mortality (aHR=1.13 (1.01-1.25)) but not readmission (aHR=0.92 (0.84-1.01)). When comparing outcomes between TAVR and sAVR in patients with diabetes, TAVR patients were older and had a higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Nevertheless, 30-day readmission and mortality were lower in patients who underwent TAVR (aHR=0.59 (0.53-0.67), aHR=0.29 (0.25-0.34), respectively) compared with sAVR. Coronary artery disease was the most significant predictor of readmission in patients with diabetes. CKD increased the risk of mortality by almost twofold in both techniques.
Diabetes increases the risk of short-term mortality in sAVR but not TAVR. Moreover, the incidence of 30-day mortality and readmission is lower in TAVR compared with TAVR among patients with diabetes.
D Souza A
，Bsheish K
，Dargham S
，Jayyousi A
，Al Suwaidi J
，Abi Khalil C
... -
《Open Heart》
Meta-analysis of longitudinal comparison of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients at low to intermediate surgical risk.
Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the commonly used approach for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with aortic stenosis at low or intermediate surgical risk. However, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an alternative to SAVR for AVR. This meta-analysis aims to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of TAVR versus SAVR in low-to-intermediate surgical risk patients by analyzing temporal trends in the outcomes of TAVR and SAVR at various follow-up intervals, providing a more detailed understanding.
A thorough literature search was performed across PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from their inception up to May 2024 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Clinical outcomes were evaluated using a random-effects model to pool risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs.
A total of 17 studies reporting data at different follow-ups for nine trials were included (n=9092). No statistically significant difference was observed between TAVR and SAVR for reducing all-cause death at 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years but significantly increased risk with TAVR at 5 years or longer follow-up (RR=1.13, 95% CI: 1.03-1.23). However, TAVR was associated with a significantly decreased risk for cardiac death at 1-year follow-up (RR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.64-0.96) and comparable risk for cardiac death at 30 days, 2 years, and 5 years or longer follow-up when compared with SAVR. No statistically significant difference was observed between TAVR and SAVR for reducing the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) at 30 days, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years or longer follow-up.TAVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding events at 30 days (RR=0.38, 95% CI: 0.21-0.67); lower risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) at 30 days (RR=0.38, 95% CI: 0.26-0.54) and 1 year (RR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.41-0.82) and lower risk of new onset or worsening atrial fibrillation (AF) at 30 days (RR=0.25, 95% CI: 0.18-0.34), 1 year (RR=0.26, 95% CI: 0.16-0.41) and 2 years (RR=0.32, 95% CI: 0.20-0.49) when compared with SAVR. However, TAVR was associated with a significantly increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) at 30 days (RR: 2.62, 95% CI: 1.40-4.91), at 1 year (RR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.24-3.87), at 2 years (RR: 2.74, 95% CI: 1.31-5.71), and beyond 5 years (RR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.20-3.15). TAVR was also associated with a significantly increased risk of prosthetic valve thrombosis at 2 years (RR=2.70, 95% CI: 1.08-6.71), though no significant association was observed at 30 days, 1 year, or 5 years. Similarly, no significant differences were observed in aortic-valve reintervention rates at 30 days, 2 years, or 5 years, but TAVR showed a significantly increased risk at 1 year (RR=1.98, 95% CI: 1.21-3.24). TAVR was associated with a significantly increased risk of major vascular complications at 30 days (RR=2.37, 95% CI: 1.38-4.04) and a significantly increased risk of TIA at 2 years (RR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.02-2.00, I2=0%). The risk of hospitalizations was comparable between the groups.
TAVR and SAVR demonstrated comparable rates of all-cause death up to 2 years of follow-up. However, at 5 years or longer follow-up, TAVR was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death. While TAVR showed certain procedural advantages, such as a lower risk of major bleeding, AKI, and new-onset or worsening AF, the choice between TAVR and SAVR in patients with low or intermediate surgical risk should consider long-term outcomes, with SAVR potentially being more favorable due to better survival observed on longer follow-up durations.
Ahmed M
，Ahsan A
，Shafiq A
，Nadeem ZA
，Arif F
，Zulfiqar E
，Kazmi MH
，Yadav R
，Jain H
，Ahmed R
，Alam M
，Shahid F
... -
《-》
Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing 3 Aortic Valve Interventions: The THIRD Multicenter Registry.
Lifetime treatment of aortic valve disease is a matter of increasing debate. Although the risks of a second aortic valve intervention are recognized, little attention has been given to the challenges of a third.
This study delves into the clinical characteristics, indications, and outcomes of patients undergoing 3 aortic valve interventions.
The THIRD (THree aortIc Reinterventions for valve Disease) registry is a retrospective multicenter, international study of patients who underwent a third procedure on the aortic valve, either surgically or transcatheter-based. Patients undergoing 2 aortic procedures during the same hospital admission were excluded. Baseline characteristics, timing, and mode of bioprosthetic failure, sequence of the procedures, and clinical outcomes were adjudicated according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria.
A total of 51 patients from 11 centers were enrolled in this study. Median follow-up time was 565 (314-1,560) days. Eighteen patients (35%) underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), and 33 of 51 patients (65%) underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as the third intervention. Mean age was 69 ± 14 years, 20 of 51 patients (39%) were female. STS score was 5.0% (Q1-Q3: 3.3%-7.0%). In all TAVR cases, the indication for the first intervention was severe aortic stenosis, as was the indication in 31 of 45 (69%) of SAVR cases (33% bicuspid). The most prevalent procedure sequence was SAVR-SAVR-TAVR (19/51, 37%), followed by SAVR-SAVR-SAVR (10/51, 20%) and SAVR-TAVR-TAVR (10/51, 20%). TAVR-TAVR-TAVR was performed in 4 of 51 cases (8%). The primary indications for a third intervention included structural valve deterioration (SVD) (39/51, 76%), non-SVD (8/51, 16%), and endocarditis (2/51, 4%). Excluding patients with a mechanical prosthesis, predictors of SAVR as third intervention included a lower STS score (OR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.34-0.98; P = 0.04) and the presence of moderate or severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (OR: 44.8; 95% CI: 2.41-122.00; P = 0.01). Thirty-day device success was 85% for TAVR and 94% for SAVR.
In the THIRD registry, SVD emerged as the predominant indication for a third aortic valve procedure. The most frequent procedure sequence was SAVR-SAVR-TAVR, whereas TAVR-TAVR-TAVR was less common. Although the short-term outcomes in our selected cohort were favorable, further investigation is needed.
Tarantini G
，Tang GHL
，Pilgrim T
，Kim WK
，Greenbaum A
，Castriota F
，Webb JG
，Nombela Franco L
，De Backer O
，Hartikainen T
，Codner P
，Koren O
，Patel V
，Meier D
，Tomii D
，Ueyama HA
，Paredes-Vázquez JG
，Arturi F
，Kornowski R
，Makkar RR
，Cardaioli F
，Nai Fovino L
，THIRD Registry Investigators
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
