Key result
In patients with paravalvular regurgitation, percutaneous repair resulted in similar in-hospital complication rates compared to surgical repair (80% vs. 72%, p=0.99), though the percutaneous group had higher baseline surgical risk.
Why the study?
Does a percutaneous approach improve clinical outcomes compared to a surgical approach in patients with paravalvular regurgitation?
Observational (n=35)
No
Does a percutaneous approach improve clinical outcomes compared to a surgical approach in patients with paravalvular regurgitation?
Absolute Event Rate: 80% vs 72%
p-value: p=0.99
Surgical repair remains the treatment of choice for paravalvular regurgitation, while the percutaneous approach serves as an alternative for patients at high surgical risk despite trends toward higher mortality and residual leak.
Percutaneous repair may suit high-risk patients; leaves open randomized comparisons of outcomes versus surgery.
BACKGROUND: Paravalvular regurgitation (paravalvular leak) is a serious and rare complication associated with valve replacement surgery. Studies have shown a 3% to 6% incidence of paravalvular regurgitation with hemodynamic repercussion. Few studies have compared surgical and percutaneous approaches for repair. OBJECTIVES: To compare the surgical and percutaneous approaches for paravalvular regurgitation repair regarding clinical outcomes during hospitalization and one year after the procedure. METHODS: This is a retrospective, descriptive and observational study that included 35 patients with paravalvular leak, requiring repair, and followed up at the Dante Pazzanese Institute of Cardiology between January 2011 and December 2013. Patients were divided into groups according to the established treatment and followed up for 1 year after the procedure. RESULTS: The group submitted to percutaneous treatment was considered to be at higher risk for complications because of the older age of patients, higher prevalence of diabetes, greater number of previous valve surgeries and lower mean creatinine clearance value. During hospitalization, both groups had a large number of complications (74.3% of cases), with no statistical difference in the analyzed outcomes. After 1 year, the percutaneous group had a greater number of re-interventions (8.7% vs 20%, p = 0.57) and a higher mortality rate (0% vs. 20%, p = 0.08). A high incidence of residual mitral leak was observed after the percutaneous procedure (8.7% vs. 50%, p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: Surgery is the treatment of choice for paravalvular regurgitation. The percutaneous approach can be an alternative for patients at high surgical risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pinheiro et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Paravalvular regurgitation (n=35). Percutaneous repair vs. Surgical repair was evaluated on In-hospital complications (p=0.99). In patients with paravalvular regurgitation, percutaneous repair resulted in similar in-hospital complication rates compared to surgical repair (80% vs. 72%, p=0.99), though the percutaneous group had higher baseline surgical risk.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: