Key result
Porcelain aorta in TAVI linked to ~149% higher 1-year disabling stroke risk.
Why the study?
Current guidelines favor TAVI over surgical AVR in patients with porcelain aorta, but the clinical relevance of porcelain aorta in patients undergoing TAVI is incompletely understood.
Does the presence of porcelain aorta increase the risk of disabling stroke in patients undergoing TAVI?
Cohort (n=2,199)
No
Does the presence of porcelain aorta increase the risk of disabling stroke in patients undergoing TAVI?
Patients with porcelain aorta undergoing TAVI have a significantly higher risk of periprocedural disabling stroke, particularly when treated via alternative access routes.
Porcelain aorta warrants heightened periprocedural stroke vigilance in TAVI; leaves open whether alternative access or protection strategies improve outcomes.
BackgroundCurrent guidelines favor transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) over surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with porcelain aorta (PAo). The clinical relevance of PAo in patients undergoing TAVI is however incompletely understood. The purpose of this study is to evaluate clinical outcome of patients with PAo undergoing TAVI.MethodsConsecutive patients undergoing TAVI were enrolled in a prospective single-center registry. Presence of PAo was evaluated by ECG-gated multi-slice computed tomography prior to the intervention. The primary endpoint was disabling stroke.ResultsAmong 2199 patients (mean age, 82.0 ± 6.3 years; 1135 females [51.6%]) undergoing TAVI between August 2007 and December 2019, 114 patients (5.2%) met VARC-2 criteria for PAo. Compared to individuals without PAo, patients with PAo were younger (79.4 ± 7.4 years vs. 82.1 ± 6.2 years; p < 0.001), had a lower left ventricular ejection fraction (51.8 ± 14.9% vs. 55.3 ± 14.2%; p = 0.009) and higher STS-PROM Scores (6.5 ± 4.3% vs. 4.9 ± 3.4%; p < 0.001). At 1 year, disabling stroke occurred more often in patients with PAo (7.2%) than in those without (3.0%) (HRadj, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.12–5.55). The risk difference emerged within 30 days after TAVI (HRadj, 3.70; 95% CI, 1.52–9.03), and was driven by a high PAo-associated risk of disabling stroke in patients with alternative access (HRadj, 5.79; 95% CI, 1.38–24.3), not in those with transfemoral (HRadj, 1.47; 95% CI 0.45–4.85).ConclusionsTAVI patients with PAo had a more than three-fold increased risk of periprocedural disabling stroke compared to patients with no PAo. The difference was driven by a higher risk of stroke in patients treated by alternative access.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Asami et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Porcelain aorta in patients undergoing TAVI (n=2,199). TAVI in patients with porcelain aorta vs. TAVI in patients without porcelain aorta was evaluated on disabling stroke (HRadj 2.49, 95% CI 1.12-5.55). TAVI patients with porcelain aorta had a significantly higher risk of disabling stroke at 1 year compared to those without (7.2% vs 3.0%; HRadj 2.49, 95% CI 1.12-5.55).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: