TAVR+PCI与SAVR+CABG后的剩余SYNTAX评分和结果:倾向匹配,基于性别的比较

IF 2.8 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Max Potratz, Vera Fortmeier, Katharina Höflsauer, Muhammed Gerçek, Isabel Horn, Georges El Hachem, Johannes Kirchner, Volker Rudolph, Smita Scholtz, Jan Gummert, Charles J Davidson, Sabine Bleiziffer, Tanja K Rudolph
{"title":"TAVR+PCI与SAVR+CABG后的剩余SYNTAX评分和结果:倾向匹配,基于性别的比较","authors":"Max Potratz, Vera Fortmeier, Katharina Höflsauer, Muhammed Gerçek, Isabel Horn, Georges El Hachem, Johannes Kirchner, Volker Rudolph, Smita Scholtz, Jan Gummert, Charles J Davidson, Sabine Bleiziffer, Tanja K Rudolph","doi":"10.1136/openhrt-2025-003541","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently coexist, requiring careful revascularisation strategy consideration. While surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) plus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is traditional, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) plus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly used. The optimal strategy, particularly regarding residual CAD burden, remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study investigated the impact of residual SYNTAX (Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score (rSS) on outcomes in men and women with AS and CAD undergoing TAVR+PCI versus SAVR+CABG.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective study, propensity score-matched cohorts of men and women undergoing either procedure were analysed. Matching variables included age, left ventricular ejection fraction, EuroSCORE II (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II) and CAD severity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>398 patients (114 women and 284 men) were included. The rSS was predictive of the primary composite endpoint in the TAVR+PCI group (p=0.006 women and p<0.001 men) but not in the SAVR+CABG group. In patients achieving an rSS<8, TAVR+PCI was associated with a lower combined endpoint rate compared with SAVR+CABG, consistent across genders (p=0.02). Furthermore, TAVR+PCI demonstrated significant safety benefits, including lower rates of major bleeding in men (2.1% vs 10.6%) and stroke in women (1.8% vs 12.3%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The prognostic importance of the rSS is strategy-dependent. For patients undergoing TAVR+PCI, achieving extensive revascularisation (rSS <8) is a critical procedural goal associated with improved outcomes. For patients undergoing SAVR+CABG, prognosis appears driven more by baseline clinical risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":19505,"journal":{"name":"Open Heart","volume":"12 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12496072/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Residual SYNTAX score and outcomes after TAVR+PCI versus SAVR+CABG: a propensity-matched, gender-based comparison.\",\"authors\":\"Max Potratz, Vera Fortmeier, Katharina Höflsauer, Muhammed Gerçek, Isabel Horn, Georges El Hachem, Johannes Kirchner, Volker Rudolph, Smita Scholtz, Jan Gummert, Charles J Davidson, Sabine Bleiziffer, Tanja K Rudolph\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/openhrt-2025-003541\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently coexist, requiring careful revascularisation strategy consideration. While surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) plus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is traditional, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) plus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly used. The optimal strategy, particularly regarding residual CAD burden, remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study investigated the impact of residual SYNTAX (Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score (rSS) on outcomes in men and women with AS and CAD undergoing TAVR+PCI versus SAVR+CABG.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective study, propensity score-matched cohorts of men and women undergoing either procedure were analysed. Matching variables included age, left ventricular ejection fraction, EuroSCORE II (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II) and CAD severity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>398 patients (114 women and 284 men) were included. The rSS was predictive of the primary composite endpoint in the TAVR+PCI group (p=0.006 women and p<0.001 men) but not in the SAVR+CABG group. In patients achieving an rSS<8, TAVR+PCI was associated with a lower combined endpoint rate compared with SAVR+CABG, consistent across genders (p=0.02). Furthermore, TAVR+PCI demonstrated significant safety benefits, including lower rates of major bleeding in men (2.1% vs 10.6%) and stroke in women (1.8% vs 12.3%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The prognostic importance of the rSS is strategy-dependent. For patients undergoing TAVR+PCI, achieving extensive revascularisation (rSS <8) is a critical procedural goal associated with improved outcomes. For patients undergoing SAVR+CABG, prognosis appears driven more by baseline clinical risk.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19505,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Heart\",\"volume\":\"12 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12496072/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Heart\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2025-003541\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Heart","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2025-003541","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"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

背景:主动脉狭窄(AS)和冠状动脉疾病(CAD)经常共存,需要仔细考虑血运重建策略。虽然外科主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)加冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)是传统的,但经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)加经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的应用越来越多。最佳策略,特别是关于残余CAD负担,仍然不清楚。目的:本研究探讨剩余SYNTAX(经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与心脏手术之间的协同作用)评分(rSS)对男性和女性AS和CAD患者接受TAVR+PCI与SAVR+CABG的结果的影响。方法:在这项回顾性研究中,对接受任一手术的男性和女性的倾向评分匹配队列进行分析。匹配变量包括年龄、左心室射血分数、EuroSCORE II(欧洲心脏手术风险评估系统II)和CAD严重程度。结果:共纳入398例患者,其中女性114例,男性284例。在TAVR+PCI组中,rrs可预测主要复合终点(p=0.006,女性和男性)。结论:rrs对预后的重要性取决于治疗策略。对于接受TAVR+PCI的患者,实现广泛血运重建术(rSS)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Residual SYNTAX score and outcomes after TAVR+PCI versus SAVR+CABG: a propensity-matched, gender-based comparison.

Background: Aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently coexist, requiring careful revascularisation strategy consideration. While surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) plus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is traditional, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) plus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly used. The optimal strategy, particularly regarding residual CAD burden, remains unclear.

Objectives: This study investigated the impact of residual SYNTAX (Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score (rSS) on outcomes in men and women with AS and CAD undergoing TAVR+PCI versus SAVR+CABG.

Methods: In this retrospective study, propensity score-matched cohorts of men and women undergoing either procedure were analysed. Matching variables included age, left ventricular ejection fraction, EuroSCORE II (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II) and CAD severity.

Results: 398 patients (114 women and 284 men) were included. The rSS was predictive of the primary composite endpoint in the TAVR+PCI group (p=0.006 women and p<0.001 men) but not in the SAVR+CABG group. In patients achieving an rSS<8, TAVR+PCI was associated with a lower combined endpoint rate compared with SAVR+CABG, consistent across genders (p=0.02). Furthermore, TAVR+PCI demonstrated significant safety benefits, including lower rates of major bleeding in men (2.1% vs 10.6%) and stroke in women (1.8% vs 12.3%).

Conclusions: The prognostic importance of the rSS is strategy-dependent. For patients undergoing TAVR+PCI, achieving extensive revascularisation (rSS <8) is a critical procedural goal associated with improved outcomes. For patients undergoing SAVR+CABG, prognosis appears driven more by baseline clinical risk.

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
Open Heart
Open Heart CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
3.70%
发文量
145
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Open Heart is an online-only, open access cardiology journal that aims to be “open” in many ways: open access (free access for all readers), open peer review (unblinded peer review) and open data (data sharing is encouraged). The goal is to ensure maximum transparency and maximum impact on research progress and patient care. The journal is dedicated to publishing high quality, peer reviewed medical research in all disciplines and therapeutic areas of cardiovascular medicine. Research is published across all study phases and designs, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Opinionated discussions on controversial topics are welcomed. Open Heart aims to operate a fast submission and review process with continuous publication online, to ensure timely, up-to-date research is available worldwide. The journal adheres to a rigorous and transparent peer review process, and all articles go through a statistical assessment to ensure robustness of the analyses. Open Heart is an official journal of the British Cardiovascular Society.
×
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