机械三尖瓣有更高的再介入率:单中心经验。

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Turki B Albacker, Amr A Arafat, Abdulaziz M Alotaibi, Haneen Alghosoon, Khalid D Algarni
{"title":"机械三尖瓣有更高的再介入率:单中心经验。","authors":"Turki B Albacker,&nbsp;Amr A Arafat,&nbsp;Abdulaziz M Alotaibi,&nbsp;Haneen Alghosoon,&nbsp;Khalid D Algarni","doi":"10.5761/atcs.oa.22-00086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We compared the composite outcome of tricuspid valve (TV) reintervention or heart failure (HF) admission in patients who underwent tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) with tissue vs. mechanical valves.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>The study included 159 patients who underwent TVR from 2009 to 2019. We grouped the patients according to the valve's type into tissue valve group (n = 139) and mechanical valve group (n = 20).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age of patients was 52.4 ± 12.8 years, and 117 patients were females (73.6%). Hospital mortality occurred in 20 patients (12.6%); all of them were in the tissue valve group. The composite outcome of reintervention and HF readmission occurred in 8 patients with mechanical valves (40%) vs. 24 patients with tissue valves (17.3%), (P = 0.018). Predictors of reintervention and HF admission were female (subdistributional hazard ratio [SHR]: 1.38-34.3, P = 0.019), stroke (SHR: 1.25-8.76, P = 0.016), hypertension (SHR: 1.13-5.36, P = 0.024), and mechanical valves (SHR: 1.6-10.7, P = 0.003). In post hoc analysis, the difference in the composite outcome was derived from the difference in the reintervention rate that was higher in mechanical valves. Survival did not differ significantly between groups (P = 0.12).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Mechanical TVs have a higher rate of composite outcome of reintervention or HF readmission than tissue TVs that are related mainly to higher rate of reintervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":8037,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery","volume":"29 2","pages":"78-85"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d3/46/atcs-29-078.PMC10126767.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mechanical Tricuspid Valves Have Higher Rate of Reintervention: A Single Center Experience.\",\"authors\":\"Turki B Albacker,&nbsp;Amr A Arafat,&nbsp;Abdulaziz M Alotaibi,&nbsp;Haneen Alghosoon,&nbsp;Khalid D Algarni\",\"doi\":\"10.5761/atcs.oa.22-00086\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We compared the composite outcome of tricuspid valve (TV) reintervention or heart failure (HF) admission in patients who underwent tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) with tissue vs. mechanical valves.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>The study included 159 patients who underwent TVR from 2009 to 2019. We grouped the patients according to the valve's type into tissue valve group (n = 139) and mechanical valve group (n = 20).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age of patients was 52.4 ± 12.8 years, and 117 patients were females (73.6%). Hospital mortality occurred in 20 patients (12.6%); all of them were in the tissue valve group. The composite outcome of reintervention and HF readmission occurred in 8 patients with mechanical valves (40%) vs. 24 patients with tissue valves (17.3%), (P = 0.018). Predictors of reintervention and HF admission were female (subdistributional hazard ratio [SHR]: 1.38-34.3, P = 0.019), stroke (SHR: 1.25-8.76, P = 0.016), hypertension (SHR: 1.13-5.36, P = 0.024), and mechanical valves (SHR: 1.6-10.7, P = 0.003). In post hoc analysis, the difference in the composite outcome was derived from the difference in the reintervention rate that was higher in mechanical valves. Survival did not differ significantly between groups (P = 0.12).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Mechanical TVs have a higher rate of composite outcome of reintervention or HF readmission than tissue TVs that are related mainly to higher rate of reintervention.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8037,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery\",\"volume\":\"29 2\",\"pages\":\"78-85\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d3/46/atcs-29-078.PMC10126767.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5761/atcs.oa.22-00086\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5761/atcs.oa.22-00086","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的:我们比较三尖瓣置换术(TVR)与机械瓣膜置换术(TVR)患者三尖瓣(TV)再干预或心力衰竭(HF)入院的综合结果。患者和方法:该研究包括2009年至2019年接受TVR的159例患者。根据瓣膜类型将患者分为组织瓣膜组(n = 139)和机械瓣膜组(n = 20)。结果:患者平均年龄52.4±12.8岁,女性117例(73.6%)。住院死亡20例(12.6%);所有患者均为组织瓣膜组。机械瓣膜8例(40%)与组织瓣膜24例(17.3%)出现再干预和HF再入院的复合结局(P = 0.018)。再干预和HF入院的预测因子为女性(亚分布风险比[SHR]: 1.38 ~ 34.3, P = 0.019)、卒中(SHR: 1.25 ~ 8.76, P = 0.016)、高血压(SHR: 1.13 ~ 5.36, P = 0.024)和机械瓣膜(SHR: 1.6 ~ 10.7, P = 0.003)。在事后分析中,复合结果的差异源于机械瓣膜再干预率较高的差异。两组间生存率无显著差异(P = 0.12)。结论:机械电视的再干预率和HF再入院率均高于组织电视,而组织电视的再干预率主要与机械电视的再干预率有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Mechanical Tricuspid Valves Have Higher Rate of Reintervention: A Single Center Experience.

Mechanical Tricuspid Valves Have Higher Rate of Reintervention: A Single Center Experience.

Mechanical Tricuspid Valves Have Higher Rate of Reintervention: A Single Center Experience.

Purpose: We compared the composite outcome of tricuspid valve (TV) reintervention or heart failure (HF) admission in patients who underwent tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) with tissue vs. mechanical valves.

Patients and methods: The study included 159 patients who underwent TVR from 2009 to 2019. We grouped the patients according to the valve's type into tissue valve group (n = 139) and mechanical valve group (n = 20).

Results: The mean age of patients was 52.4 ± 12.8 years, and 117 patients were females (73.6%). Hospital mortality occurred in 20 patients (12.6%); all of them were in the tissue valve group. The composite outcome of reintervention and HF readmission occurred in 8 patients with mechanical valves (40%) vs. 24 patients with tissue valves (17.3%), (P = 0.018). Predictors of reintervention and HF admission were female (subdistributional hazard ratio [SHR]: 1.38-34.3, P = 0.019), stroke (SHR: 1.25-8.76, P = 0.016), hypertension (SHR: 1.13-5.36, P = 0.024), and mechanical valves (SHR: 1.6-10.7, P = 0.003). In post hoc analysis, the difference in the composite outcome was derived from the difference in the reintervention rate that was higher in mechanical valves. Survival did not differ significantly between groups (P = 0.12).

Conclusion: Mechanical TVs have a higher rate of composite outcome of reintervention or HF readmission than tissue TVs that are related mainly to higher rate of reintervention.

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
Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-SURGERY
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
56
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Information not localized
×
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