Key result
Transapical TAVR showed no significant difference in median freedom from death and cardio-cerebral events among patients with atherosclerotic, morphologic, or combined aortic diseases (P=0.525).
Why the study?
The clinical impact of diverse aortic pathologies on TAVR outcomes is not well known, as information is scarce.
Does transapical TAVR provide safe and effective outcomes in high-risk patients with diverse aortic pathologies?
Cohort (n=55)
No
Does transapical TAVR provide safe and effective outcomes in high-risk patients with diverse aortic pathologies?
p-value: p=0.525
Transapical TAVR is a safe and feasible approach with promising early and midterm outcomes for high-risk patients with diverse concomitant aortic pathologies.
OBJECTIVES: Some patients who undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a concomitant diverse aortic pathologies (AP). They are usually considered high-risk candidates for the procedure and require further assessment to determine the best vascular approach. The impact of these AP on TAVR is not well known as the information is scarce. We aimed to evaluate midterm clinical impact of different AP after transapical (TA)-TAVR. METHODS: Twenty patients with atherosclerotic/occluding aortic diseases (A/OAD) (porcelain aorta, Leriche Syndrome, penetrating aortic ulcer, and aortic thrombus), 24 patients with aortic morphologic diseases (AMD) (thoracic/abdominal aortic aneurysms, aortic kinking, aortic type B dissection, aortic elongation/tortuosity, and previous aortic intervention), and 11 patients with combined aortic diseases (CAD) underwent TA-TAVR treatment between January 2011 and November 2019 at our center. We conducted up to 5-years clinical follow-up. RESULTS: All patients were classified in the heart team as a high interventional risk. The 30-day mortality and stroke were 5% and 10% in the A/OAD, 8.3% and 0% in the AMD, and 0% and 0% in the CAD, respectively. The median time of freedom from a composite of death and cardio-cerebral adverse events was 22.1 months [95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.9-34.3] in A/OAD versus 34.3 months [95% CI: 15.6-53] in AMD versus 17 months [95% CI: 0-39.4] in CAD; p = .525. We registered neither procedural aortic injury nor aortic syndrome at follow-up. The moderate/severe paravalvular leakage rates were 5%, 0% and 0% in the A/OAD, AMD and CAD, respectively. CONCLUSION: Independent of underlying AP, the TA-TAVR is a safe method and shows very promising early and midterm outcomes in patients with various AP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Useini et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Diverse aortic pathologies requiring transcatheter aortic valve replacement (n=55). Different aortic pathologies (atherosclerotic/occluding, morphologic, combined) vs. Compared among groups was evaluated on Median time of freedom from a composite of death and cardio-cerebral adverse events (p=0.525). Transapical TAVR showed no significant difference in median freedom from death and cardio-cerebral events among patients with atherosclerotic, morphologic, or combined aortic diseases (P=0.525).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: