使用生物人工瓣膜和机械瓣膜进行主动脉瓣置换术后基于年龄的结果。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
{"title":"使用生物人工瓣膜和机械瓣膜进行主动脉瓣置换术后基于年龄的结果。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.07.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Recommendations for prosthesis type in older patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are established, albeit undervalidated. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes after bioprosthetic versus mechanical SAVR across various age groups. This was a retrospective study using an institutional SAVR database. All patients who underwent isolated SAVR were compared across valve types and age strata (&lt;65 years, 65 to 75 years, &gt;75 years). Patients who underwent concomitant operations, aortic root interventions, or previous aortic valve replacement were excluded. Objective survival and aortic valve reinterventions were compared. Kaplan–Meier survival estimation and multivariate regression were performed. A total of 1,847 patients underwent SAVR from 2010 to 2023. A total of 1,452 patients (78.6%) received bioprosthetic valves, whereas 395 (21.4%) received mechanical valves. Of those who received bioprosthetic valves, 349 (24.0%) were aged &lt;65 years, 627 (43.2%) were 65 to 75 years, and 476 (32.8%%) were older than 75 years. For patients who received mechanical valves, 308 (78.0%) were aged &lt;65 years, 84 (21.3%) were between 65 and 75 years, and 3 (0.7%) were &gt;75 years. The median follow-up in the total cohort was 6.2 (2.6 to 8.9) years. No statistically significant differences were observed in early-term Kaplan–Meier survival estimates between SAVR valve types in all age groups. However, the cumulative incidence estimates of aortic valve reintervention were significantly higher in patients aged under 65 years who received bioprosthetic than those who received mechanical valves, with 5-year reintervention rates of 5.8% and 3.1%, respectively (p = 0.002). On competing risk analysis for valve reintervention, bioprosthetic valves were significantly associated with an increased hazard of aortic valve reintervention (hazard ratio 3.35, 95% confidence interval 1.73 to 6.49, p &lt;0.001). In conclusion, SAVR with bioprosthetic valves (particularly, in patients aged &lt;65 years) was comparable in survival to mechanical valve SAVR but significantly associated with increased valve reintervention rates.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7705,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Cardiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002914924005101/pdfft?md5=291801daf396aaa6d511be4c634db185&pid=1-s2.0-S0002914924005101-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Age-Based Outcomes After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement With Bioprosthetic Versus Mechanical Valves\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.07.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Recommendations for prosthesis type in older patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are established, albeit undervalidated. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes after bioprosthetic versus mechanical SAVR across various age groups. This was a retrospective study using an institutional SAVR database. All patients who underwent isolated SAVR were compared across valve types and age strata (&lt;65 years, 65 to 75 years, &gt;75 years). Patients who underwent concomitant operations, aortic root interventions, or previous aortic valve replacement were excluded. Objective survival and aortic valve reinterventions were compared. Kaplan–Meier survival estimation and multivariate regression were performed. A total of 1,847 patients underwent SAVR from 2010 to 2023. A total of 1,452 patients (78.6%) received bioprosthetic valves, whereas 395 (21.4%) received mechanical valves. Of those who received bioprosthetic valves, 349 (24.0%) were aged &lt;65 years, 627 (43.2%) were 65 to 75 years, and 476 (32.8%%) were older than 75 years. For patients who received mechanical valves, 308 (78.0%) were aged &lt;65 years, 84 (21.3%) were between 65 and 75 years, and 3 (0.7%) were &gt;75 years. The median follow-up in the total cohort was 6.2 (2.6 to 8.9) years. No statistically significant differences were observed in early-term Kaplan–Meier survival estimates between SAVR valve types in all age groups. However, the cumulative incidence estimates of aortic valve reintervention were significantly higher in patients aged under 65 years who received bioprosthetic than those who received mechanical valves, with 5-year reintervention rates of 5.8% and 3.1%, respectively (p = 0.002). On competing risk analysis for valve reintervention, bioprosthetic valves were significantly associated with an increased hazard of aortic valve reintervention (hazard ratio 3.35, 95% confidence interval 1.73 to 6.49, p &lt;0.001). In conclusion, SAVR with bioprosthetic valves (particularly, in patients aged &lt;65 years) was comparable in survival to mechanical valve SAVR but significantly associated with increased valve reintervention rates.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7705,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Cardiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002914924005101/pdfft?md5=291801daf396aaa6d511be4c634db185&pid=1-s2.0-S0002914924005101-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002914924005101\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002914924005101","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对于接受主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)的老年患者,假体类型的建议已经确立,但尚未得到充分验证。本研究的目的是比较不同年龄组的生物人工瓣膜与机械主动脉瓣置换术的疗效。这是一项利用机构 SAVR 数据库进行的回顾性研究。对所有接受孤立 SAVR 的患者进行了不同瓣膜类型和年龄层(75 岁)的比较。排除了同时接受手术、主动脉根部介入治疗或之前接受过主动脉瓣置换术的患者。比较了客观存活率和主动脉瓣再介入情况。进行了卡普兰-梅耶生存率估计和多变量回归分析。2010-2023年间,共有1847名患者接受了SAVR。1452名患者(78.6%)接受了生物人工瓣膜,395名患者(21.4%)接受了机械瓣膜。在接受生物瓣膜的患者中,349人(24.0%)的年龄为75岁。所有患者的中位随访时间为 6.2 [2.6-8.9] 年。在所有年龄组中,不同SAVR瓣膜类型的早期Kaplan-Meier存活率估计值无明显统计学差异。然而,在接受生物瓣膜与机械瓣膜的 65 岁以下患者中,主动脉瓣再介入的累积发生率估计值明显更高,5 年再介入率分别为 5.8% 和 3.1%(P=0.002)。在瓣膜再介入的竞争风险分析中,生物修复瓣膜与主动脉瓣再介入风险的增加有显著相关性(HR,3.35;95% CI,1.73-6.49;P=0.002)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Age-Based Outcomes After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement With Bioprosthetic Versus Mechanical Valves

Recommendations for prosthesis type in older patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are established, albeit undervalidated. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes after bioprosthetic versus mechanical SAVR across various age groups. This was a retrospective study using an institutional SAVR database. All patients who underwent isolated SAVR were compared across valve types and age strata (<65 years, 65 to 75 years, >75 years). Patients who underwent concomitant operations, aortic root interventions, or previous aortic valve replacement were excluded. Objective survival and aortic valve reinterventions were compared. Kaplan–Meier survival estimation and multivariate regression were performed. A total of 1,847 patients underwent SAVR from 2010 to 2023. A total of 1,452 patients (78.6%) received bioprosthetic valves, whereas 395 (21.4%) received mechanical valves. Of those who received bioprosthetic valves, 349 (24.0%) were aged <65 years, 627 (43.2%) were 65 to 75 years, and 476 (32.8%%) were older than 75 years. For patients who received mechanical valves, 308 (78.0%) were aged <65 years, 84 (21.3%) were between 65 and 75 years, and 3 (0.7%) were >75 years. The median follow-up in the total cohort was 6.2 (2.6 to 8.9) years. No statistically significant differences were observed in early-term Kaplan–Meier survival estimates between SAVR valve types in all age groups. However, the cumulative incidence estimates of aortic valve reintervention were significantly higher in patients aged under 65 years who received bioprosthetic than those who received mechanical valves, with 5-year reintervention rates of 5.8% and 3.1%, respectively (p = 0.002). On competing risk analysis for valve reintervention, bioprosthetic valves were significantly associated with an increased hazard of aortic valve reintervention (hazard ratio 3.35, 95% confidence interval 1.73 to 6.49, p <0.001). In conclusion, SAVR with bioprosthetic valves (particularly, in patients aged <65 years) was comparable in survival to mechanical valve SAVR but significantly associated with increased valve reintervention rates.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Cardiology
American Journal of Cardiology 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
3.60%
发文量
698
审稿时长
33 days
期刊介绍: Published 24 times a year, The American Journal of Cardiology® is an independent journal designed for cardiovascular disease specialists and internists with a subspecialty in cardiology throughout the world. AJC is an independent, scientific, peer-reviewed journal of original articles that focus on the practical, clinical approach to the diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease. AJC has one of the fastest acceptance to publication times in Cardiology. Features report on systemic hypertension, methodology, drugs, pacing, arrhythmia, preventive cardiology, congestive heart failure, valvular heart disease, congenital heart disease, and cardiomyopathy. Also included are editorials, readers'' comments, and symposia.
×
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