严重主动脉瓣狭窄患者经导管主动脉瓣置换术与手术后的5年生存率——我们是否为每位患者选择了正确的治疗方法?倾向评分匹配分析。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
George Samanidis, Antonios Roussakis, Sotirios Katsaridis, Efthymia Liaretidou, Eirini Kefalidi, Areti Falara, Ilias Georgios Koziakas, Ioannis Nenekidis, Ilias Kosmas, Evangelos Leontiadis, Vassilios Voudris, Ioannis Iakovou, Konstantinos Perreas
{"title":"严重主动脉瓣狭窄患者经导管主动脉瓣置换术与手术后的5年生存率——我们是否为每位患者选择了正确的治疗方法?倾向评分匹配分析。","authors":"George Samanidis, Antonios Roussakis, Sotirios Katsaridis, Efthymia Liaretidou, Eirini Kefalidi, Areti Falara, Ilias Georgios Koziakas, Ioannis Nenekidis, Ilias Kosmas, Evangelos Leontiadis, Vassilios Voudris, Ioannis Iakovou, Konstantinos Perreas","doi":"10.3390/jpm15080391","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background and Objectives:</b> The treatment of choice for aortic valve stenosis in patients with low and intermediate risk is still debated. In this study, we compared the outcomes of low-to-intermediate surgical risk patients who underwent surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic valve stenosis (AS). <b>Methods:</b> Between 2015 and 2019, 326 consecutive patients with severe AS underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), while 341 patients underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The two populations were propensity score matched by age, gender and Euroscore II. The survival rate of patients during median 5-year follow-up between SAVR and TAVI patients was evaluated. <b>Results:</b> After propensity score matching, 94 pairs of patients were compared and the mean standard deviation age of patients, sex (female) and Euroscore II were 77.5 (6.6) versus 76.6 (6.5) years, 51.1% versus 51.1% and 3.3 (1.88)% versus 3.0 (1,84)%, respectively. Permanent pacemaker implantation was higher in transcatheter group (21.3% versus 1.1%, <i>p</i> < 0.001). No difference in length of ICU and in-hospital stay was observed, <i>p</i> = 0.08 and <i>p</i> = 0.12, respectively. During follow-up the presence of more than moderate insufficiency of the prosthetic valve postoperatively was significantly less frequent in the surgical versus transcatheter (0% versus 14.3%). Survival rates over 1, 3 and 5 years did not differ in surgical versus transcatheter group (93.6%, 81.9% and 62.8% versus 86.2%, 69.1% and 59.6%, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.16)). <b>Conclusions:</b> Short- and long-term survival rates were similar in patients who underwent transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement, whereas SAVR showed superior results concerning the postoperative detection of residual regurgitation and need for PPM. It is extremely important to personalize the choice of treatment according to patients' age, clinical status and life expectancy.</p>","PeriodicalId":16722,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Personalized Medicine","volume":"15 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12387828/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Five-Year Survival After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis-Do We Choose the Right Treatment for Each Patient? A Propensity Score Matched Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"George Samanidis, Antonios Roussakis, Sotirios Katsaridis, Efthymia Liaretidou, Eirini Kefalidi, Areti Falara, Ilias Georgios Koziakas, Ioannis Nenekidis, Ilias Kosmas, Evangelos Leontiadis, Vassilios Voudris, Ioannis Iakovou, Konstantinos Perreas\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/jpm15080391\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background and Objectives:</b> The treatment of choice for aortic valve stenosis in patients with low and intermediate risk is still debated. In this study, we compared the outcomes of low-to-intermediate surgical risk patients who underwent surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic valve stenosis (AS). <b>Methods:</b> Between 2015 and 2019, 326 consecutive patients with severe AS underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), while 341 patients underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The two populations were propensity score matched by age, gender and Euroscore II. The survival rate of patients during median 5-year follow-up between SAVR and TAVI patients was evaluated. <b>Results:</b> After propensity score matching, 94 pairs of patients were compared and the mean standard deviation age of patients, sex (female) and Euroscore II were 77.5 (6.6) versus 76.6 (6.5) years, 51.1% versus 51.1% and 3.3 (1.88)% versus 3.0 (1,84)%, respectively. Permanent pacemaker implantation was higher in transcatheter group (21.3% versus 1.1%, <i>p</i> < 0.001). No difference in length of ICU and in-hospital stay was observed, <i>p</i> = 0.08 and <i>p</i> = 0.12, respectively. During follow-up the presence of more than moderate insufficiency of the prosthetic valve postoperatively was significantly less frequent in the surgical versus transcatheter (0% versus 14.3%). Survival rates over 1, 3 and 5 years did not differ in surgical versus transcatheter group (93.6%, 81.9% and 62.8% versus 86.2%, 69.1% and 59.6%, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.16)). <b>Conclusions:</b> Short- and long-term survival rates were similar in patients who underwent transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement, whereas SAVR showed superior results concerning the postoperative detection of residual regurgitation and need for PPM. It is extremely important to personalize the choice of treatment according to patients' age, clinical status and life expectancy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16722,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Personalized Medicine\",\"volume\":\"15 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12387828/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Personalized Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm15080391\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Personalized Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm15080391","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景与目的:低、中危主动脉瓣狭窄患者的治疗选择仍存在争议。在这项研究中,我们比较了低至中等手术风险患者接受外科手术与经导管主动脉瓣置换术治疗严重主动脉瓣狭窄(AS)的结果。方法:2015年至2019年,326例重度AS患者连续接受了经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI), 341例患者接受了手术主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)。根据年龄、性别和Euroscore II对两组人群进行倾向评分匹配。评估SAVR和TAVI患者中位5年随访期间的生存率。结果:倾向评分匹配后,94对患者进行比较,患者年龄、性别(女性)和Euroscore II的平均标准差分别为77.5(6.6)对76.6(6.5)岁,51.1%对51.1%,3.3(1.88)%对3.0(1.84)%。经导管组永久性起搏器植入率较高(21.3%比1.1%,p < 0.001)。ICU和住院时间差异无统计学意义,p = 0.08和p = 0.12。在随访期间,术后人工瓣膜存在中度以上功能不全的发生率明显低于经导管(0%对14.3%)。手术组与经导管组的1、3和5年生存率无差异(分别为93.6%、81.9%和62.8%对86.2%、69.1%和59.6% (p = 0.16))。结论:经导管主动脉瓣置换术与手术主动脉瓣置换术患者的短期和长期生存率相似,而SAVR在术后残余返流检测和PPM需求方面显示出更好的结果。根据患者的年龄、临床状况和预期寿命进行个性化的治疗选择是非常重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Five-Year Survival After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis-Do We Choose the Right Treatment for Each Patient? A Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

Five-Year Survival After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis-Do We Choose the Right Treatment for Each Patient? A Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

Background and Objectives: The treatment of choice for aortic valve stenosis in patients with low and intermediate risk is still debated. In this study, we compared the outcomes of low-to-intermediate surgical risk patients who underwent surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic valve stenosis (AS). Methods: Between 2015 and 2019, 326 consecutive patients with severe AS underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), while 341 patients underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The two populations were propensity score matched by age, gender and Euroscore II. The survival rate of patients during median 5-year follow-up between SAVR and TAVI patients was evaluated. Results: After propensity score matching, 94 pairs of patients were compared and the mean standard deviation age of patients, sex (female) and Euroscore II were 77.5 (6.6) versus 76.6 (6.5) years, 51.1% versus 51.1% and 3.3 (1.88)% versus 3.0 (1,84)%, respectively. Permanent pacemaker implantation was higher in transcatheter group (21.3% versus 1.1%, p < 0.001). No difference in length of ICU and in-hospital stay was observed, p = 0.08 and p = 0.12, respectively. During follow-up the presence of more than moderate insufficiency of the prosthetic valve postoperatively was significantly less frequent in the surgical versus transcatheter (0% versus 14.3%). Survival rates over 1, 3 and 5 years did not differ in surgical versus transcatheter group (93.6%, 81.9% and 62.8% versus 86.2%, 69.1% and 59.6%, respectively (p = 0.16)). Conclusions: Short- and long-term survival rates were similar in patients who underwent transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement, whereas SAVR showed superior results concerning the postoperative detection of residual regurgitation and need for PPM. It is extremely important to personalize the choice of treatment according to patients' age, clinical status and life expectancy.

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
Journal of Personalized Medicine
Journal of Personalized Medicine Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1878
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Personalized Medicine (JPM; ISSN 2075-4426) is an international, open access journal aimed at bringing all aspects of personalized medicine to one platform. JPM publishes cutting edge, innovative preclinical and translational scientific research and technologies related to personalized medicine (e.g., pharmacogenomics/proteomics, systems biology). JPM recognizes that personalized medicine—the assessment of genetic, environmental and host factors that cause variability of individuals—is a challenging, transdisciplinary topic that requires discussions from a range of experts. For a comprehensive perspective of personalized medicine, JPM aims to integrate expertise from the molecular and translational sciences, therapeutics and diagnostics, as well as discussions of regulatory, social, ethical and policy aspects. We provide a forum to bring together academic and clinical researchers, biotechnology, diagnostic and pharmaceutical companies, health professionals, regulatory and ethical experts, and government and regulatory authorities.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信