Initial experience with repositionable J-Valve for severe aortic regurgitation: a single-center experience.

Lulu Liu, Ying Peng, Jun Shi, Hong Qian, Ying-qiang Guo
{"title":"Initial experience with repositionable J-Valve for severe aortic regurgitation: a single-center experience.","authors":"Lulu Liu, Ying Peng, Jun Shi, Hong Qian, Ying-qiang Guo","doi":"10.23736/S0021-9509.22.11260-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nThis study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of treating high-risk patients presenting with severe aortic regurgitation (AR) or aortic stenosis (AS) using transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).\n\n\nMETHODS\nThis retrospective study included 290 consecutive patients with symptomatic severe aortic regurgitation or aortic stenosis. All patients who underwent TAVR with J-Valve at our institution between March 2014 and July 2019. Preoperative demographic data, clinical and echocardiographic parameters, procedural parameters, postoperative clinical outcomes, and echocardiographic parameters were recorded retrospectively.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe study included a total of 290 participants 161 patients were had severe aortic regurgitation and 129 patients had severe aortic stenosis. The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. The device success rate was high for both aortic regurgitation and aortic stenosis groups (95.0% vs 93.0%, p = 0.47). All-cause mortality of both groups conditions were similar at 30 days (1.9% vs 3.9%, p = 0.48). Patients treated for aortic regurgitation had a higher incidence of pacemaker implantation compared to the aortic stenosis group (8.3% vs. 0.8%, p<0.01) at 30 days postoperation. There was no significant difference between the groups in moderate or severe paravalvular leakage (1.9% vs. 0, p=0.13). The use of larger prostheses was more common in the aortic regurgitation group compared to the aortic stenosis group (66.5% vs. 13.2%, p<0.01). Mean pressure gradient was lower in the aortic stenosis group (8.5±2.9 vs. 12.9±6.6, p < 0.01), but structural valve deterioration was more common in the aortic stenosis group (9.7% vs. 0, p<0.01) at 30 days post-op.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nIn this study, we found that the prognosis of patients with aortic regurgitation is comparable to that of patients with aortic stenosis after TAVR with J-valve. For patients with severe aortic regurgitation or aortic stenosis, TAVR is an effective therapeutic option. Pacemaker rate in the aortic regurgitation group was higher, but structural valve deterioration is was more common in aortic stenosis patients.","PeriodicalId":101333,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of cardiovascular surgery","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of cardiovascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0021-9509.22.11260-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of treating high-risk patients presenting with severe aortic regurgitation (AR) or aortic stenosis (AS) using transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS This retrospective study included 290 consecutive patients with symptomatic severe aortic regurgitation or aortic stenosis. All patients who underwent TAVR with J-Valve at our institution between March 2014 and July 2019. Preoperative demographic data, clinical and echocardiographic parameters, procedural parameters, postoperative clinical outcomes, and echocardiographic parameters were recorded retrospectively. RESULTS The study included a total of 290 participants 161 patients were had severe aortic regurgitation and 129 patients had severe aortic stenosis. The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. The device success rate was high for both aortic regurgitation and aortic stenosis groups (95.0% vs 93.0%, p = 0.47). All-cause mortality of both groups conditions were similar at 30 days (1.9% vs 3.9%, p = 0.48). Patients treated for aortic regurgitation had a higher incidence of pacemaker implantation compared to the aortic stenosis group (8.3% vs. 0.8%, p<0.01) at 30 days postoperation. There was no significant difference between the groups in moderate or severe paravalvular leakage (1.9% vs. 0, p=0.13). The use of larger prostheses was more common in the aortic regurgitation group compared to the aortic stenosis group (66.5% vs. 13.2%, p<0.01). Mean pressure gradient was lower in the aortic stenosis group (8.5±2.9 vs. 12.9±6.6, p < 0.01), but structural valve deterioration was more common in the aortic stenosis group (9.7% vs. 0, p<0.01) at 30 days post-op. CONCLUSIONS In this study, we found that the prognosis of patients with aortic regurgitation is comparable to that of patients with aortic stenosis after TAVR with J-valve. For patients with severe aortic regurgitation or aortic stenosis, TAVR is an effective therapeutic option. Pacemaker rate in the aortic regurgitation group was higher, but structural valve deterioration is was more common in aortic stenosis patients.
可复位j型瓣膜治疗严重主动脉反流的初步经验:单中心经验。
本研究旨在评价经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)治疗严重主动脉瓣返流(AR)或主动脉瓣狭窄(AS)高危患者的临床效果。方法回顾性研究纳入290例有严重症状的主动脉瓣反流或主动脉瓣狭窄患者。2014年3月至2019年7月期间在我们机构接受J-Valve TAVR的所有患者。回顾性记录术前人口学资料、临床和超声心动图参数、手术参数、术后临床结果和超声心动图参数。结果本研究共纳入290例受试者,其中重度主动脉瓣反流161例,重度主动脉瓣狭窄129例。两组的基线特征相似。主动脉瓣反流组和主动脉瓣狭窄组的器械成功率均较高(95.0% vs 93.0%, p = 0.47)。两组在30天的全因死亡率相似(1.9% vs 3.9%, p = 0.48)。术后30天,主动脉瓣返流组起搏器植入的发生率高于主动脉瓣狭窄组(8.3%比0.8%,p<0.01)。中度和重度瓣旁渗漏两组间无显著差异(1.9% vs. 0, p=0.13)。与主动脉瓣狭窄组相比,主动脉瓣反流组使用较大假体的比例更高(66.5%比13.2%,p<0.01)。主动脉瓣狭窄组的平均压力梯度较低(8.5±2.9比12.9±6.6,p<0.01),但术后30天主动脉瓣狭窄组的结构性瓣膜恶化更为常见(9.7%比0,p<0.01)。结论在本研究中,我们发现主动脉瓣反流患者与主动脉瓣狭窄患者的预后相当。对于严重主动脉反流或主动脉狭窄的患者,TAVR是一种有效的治疗选择。主动脉瓣返流组起搏器起搏率较高,但主动脉瓣狭窄组结构性瓣膜恶化更为常见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信