LIVIVO - The Search Portal for Life Sciences

zur deutschen Oberfläche wechseln
Advanced search

Search results

Result 1 - 1 of total 1

Search options

Article ; Online: Redo aortic valve replacement vs valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation

Francesca Gatta / Yama Haqzad / George Gradinariu / Pietro Giorgio Malvindi / Zubair Khalid / Rona L. Suelo-Calanao / Nader Moawad / Aladdin Bashir / Luke J. Rogers / Clinton Lloyd / Bao Nguyen / Karen Booth / Lu Wang / Nawwar Al-Attar / Neil McDowall / Stuart Watkins / Rana Sayeed / Saleh Baghdadi / Andrea D'Alessio /
Maria Monteagudo-vela / Jasmina Djordjevic / Matej Goricar / Solveig Hoppe / Charlotte Bocking / Azar Hussain / Betsy Evans / Salman Arif / Christopher Malkin / Mark Field / Kully Sandhu / Amer Harky / Ahmed Torky / Mauin Uddin / Muhammad Abdulhakeem / Ayman Kenawy / John Massey / Neil Cartwright / Nathan Tyson / Niki Nicou / Kamran Baig / Mark Jones / Firas Aljanadi / Colum G. Owens / Tunde Oyebanji / Joseph Doyle / Mark S. Spence / Paul F. Brennan / Ganesh Manoharan / Taha Ramadan / Sunil Ohri / Mahmoud Loubani

Monaldi Archives for Chest Disease (2023)

a UK propensity-matched analysis

2023  

Abstract: This study sought to compare the morbidity and mortality of redo aortic valve replacement (redo-AVR) versus valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (valve-in-valve TAVI) for patients with a failing bioprosthetic valve. A multicentre UK ... ...

Abstract This study sought to compare the morbidity and mortality of redo aortic valve replacement (redo-AVR) versus valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (valve-in-valve TAVI) for patients with a failing bioprosthetic valve. A multicentre UK retrospective study of redo-AVR or valve-in-valve TAVI for patients referred for redo aortic valve intervention due to a degenerated aortic bioprosthesis. Propensity score matching was performed for confounding factors. From July 2005 to April 2021, 911 patients underwent redo-AVR and 411 patients valve-in-valve TAVI. There were 125 pairs for analysis after propensity score matching. Mean age was 75.2±8.5 years. In-hospital mortality was 7.2% (n=9) for redo-AVR vs 0 for valve-in-valve TAVI, p=0.002. Surgical patients suffered more post-operative complications, including IABP support (p=0.02), early re-operation (p<0.001), arrhythmias (p<0.001), respiratory and neurological complications (p=0.02 and p=0.03) and multi-organ failure (p=0.01). The valve-in-valve TAVI group had a shorter intensive care unit and hospital stay (p <0.001 for both). However, moderate aortic regurgitation at discharge and higher post-procedural gradients were more common after valve-in-valve TAVI (p<0.001 for both). Survival probabilities in patients who were successfully discharged from hospital were similar after valve-in-valve TAVI and redo-AVR over the 6-year follow-up (log-rank p=0.26). In elderly patients with a degenerated aortic bioprosthesis, valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation provides better early outcomes, as opposed to redo surgical aortic valve replacement, although there was no difference in mid-term survival in patients successfully discharged from hospital.
Keywords redo aortic valve replacement ; valve-in-valve TAVI ; aortic valve ; Medicine ; R
Language English
Publishing date 2023-04-01T00:00:00Z
Publisher PAGEPress Publications
Document type Article ; Online
Database BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

More links

Kategorien

To top