Why the study?
Does critical limb ischaemia increase in-hospital mortality and complications in patients undergoing TAVI for severe aortic stenosis?
Does critical limb ischaemia increase in-hospital mortality and complications in patients undergoing TAVI for severe aortic stenosis?
In patients undergoing TAVI, critical limb ischemia is an independent predictor of increased in-hospital mortality and periprocedural complications.
CLI signals higher-risk TAVI candidates for closer monitoring; leaves open whether targeted limb interventions improve survival.
AIMS: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is common in patients with aortic valve stenosis (AS). This study sought to assess the prevalence of critical limb ischaemia (CLI) and its impact on in-hospital outcome in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe AS. METHODS AND RESULTS: All isolated TAVI procedures for AS in Germany between 2007 and 2013 were analysed regarding the stage-specific prevalence of PAD, comorbidities, in-hospital complications and mortality using diagnostic and procedural codes. Among 32,044 patients with TAVI, 3,375 (10.5%) had PAD and 654 (2.0%) CLI. TAVI patients with PAD, particularly those with CLI, had a higher incidence of periprocedural stroke, bleeding and acute kidney injury (p<0.001). The overall in-hospital mortality among TAVI without PAD, non-CLI PAD and CLI was 6.1%, 8.4% and 14.7%, respectively (p<0.001). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, CLI was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 1.96, 95% confidence interval 1.56-2.47; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TAVI, the presence of PAD is associated with an increased risk of periprocedural complications, while only CLI independently predicts increased in-hospital mortality. Whether CLI represents a marker of general poor health status resulting in poor outcome or is a modifiable risk factor whose treatment prior to TAVI can improve the outcome requires prospective studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Malyar et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: