Key result
Urgent TAVI patients present with worse baseline risk, including ~39-point higher prevalence of LVEF <50%.
Why the study?
The short and long term prognosis of patients undergoing urgent compared to elective TAVI procedures was not well characterized.
Cohort (n=405)
Urgent TAVI linked to higher long-term mortality; leaves open whether earlier elective intervention improves outcomes in decompensated patients.
Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the short and long term prognosis of patients undergoing urgent compared to elective TAVI (transcatheter aortic valve implantation) procedure. An urgent procedure was defined as a procedure on a patient whom is not able to be discharged from hospital due to decompensated left ventricular function. Methods and results: 405 TAVI procedures were performed between May 2008 and December 2016. 79 (20%) of these were classified as urgent procedures. The patients (47% female, no difference between the groups) undergoing urgent procedures had similar age (average 81 years), similar weight (average 74 kg), worse kidney function (average S-Creatinin 139 vs 108 mmol/L, p<0.01), more atrial fibrillation (51% vs 37%, p<0.05), higher NT-proBNP level (average 13910 vs 5133 ng/L, p<0.01), lower left ventricular ejection fraction (EF<50% 62% vs 23%, p<0.01), higher right ventricular pressure (average 52 vs 44 mmHg, p<0.01) and a similar maximum pressure gradient over the aortic valve (average 82 mmHg) compared to the patients undergoing elective procedures. All patients in both groups were discussed in a multidisciplinary heart team meeting and TAVI was the recommended treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Angerås et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve disease requiring TAVI (n=405). Urgent TAVI vs. Elective TAVI was evaluated. Patients undergoing urgent TAVI presented with worse baseline clinical characteristics than elective TAVI patients, including a higher prevalence of ejection fraction <50% (62% vs 23%; p<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: