Why the study?
To investigate the impact of an elevated plasma volume status in patients undergoing TAVI on early clinical safety and mortality, and assess its prognostic utility.
Does elevated preoperative plasma volume status (PVS > -4) worsen early clinical safety and mortality in patients undergoing TAVI?
Does elevated preoperative plasma volume status (PVS > -4) worsen early clinical safety and mortality in patients undergoing TAVI?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Elevated preoperative plasma volume status (PVS > -4) is a marker of subclinical congestion and is associated with significantly worse 30-day early safety outcomes in patients undergoing TAVI.
BACKGROUND: We investigated the impact of an elevated plasma volume status (PVS) in patients undergoing TAVI on early clinical safety and mortality and assessed the prognostic utility of PVS for outcome prediction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively calculated the PVS in 652 patients undergoing TAVI between 2009 and 2018 at two centres. They were then categorized into two groups depending on their preoperative PVS (PVS ≤-4; n = 257 vs PVS>-4; n = 379). Relative PVS was derived by subtracting calculated ideal (iPVS = c × weight) from actual plasma volume (aPVS = (1 - haematocrit) × (a + (b × weight in kg)). RESULTS: The need for renal replacement therapy (1 (0.4%) vs 17 (4.5%); P = .001), re-operation for noncardiac reasons (9 (3.5%) vs 32 (8.4%); P = .003), re-operation for bleeding (9 (3.5%) vs 27 (7.1%); P = .037) and major bleeding (14 (5.4%) vs 37 (9.8%); P = .033) were significantly higher in patients with a PVS>-4. The composite 30-day early safety endpoint (234 (91.1%) vs 314 (82.8%); P = .002) confirms that an increased preoperative PVS is associated with a worse overall outcome after TAVI. CONCLUSIONS: An elevated PVS (>-4) as a marker for congestion is associated with significantly worse outcome after TAVI and therefore should be incorporated in preprocedural risk stratification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adlbrecht et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: