DEPRESSION AS A PREDICTOR OF ALL-CAUSE MORTALITY IN OLDER ADULTS UNDERGOING TRANSCATHETER OR SURGICAL AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (10) ◽  
pp. S240 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Drudi ◽  
S. Lauck ◽  
D. Kim ◽  
T. Lefèvre ◽  
N. Piazza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
All Cause Mortality

scholarly journals Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Cardiac Surgery: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 36
Author(s):  
Azka Latif ◽  
Noman Lateef ◽  
Muhammad Junaid Ahsan ◽  
Vikas Kapoor ◽  
Rana Mohammad Usman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Lower Incidence ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Clinical Endpoints ◽  
Duration Of Hospital Stay ◽  
All Cause Mortality

The number of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and a history of prior cardiac surgery has increased. Prior cardiac surgery increases the risk of adverse outcomes in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. To evaluate the impact of prior cardiac surgery on clinical endpoints in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), we performed a literature search using PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases. The clinical endpoints included in our study were 30-day mortality, 1–2-year mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), bleeding, stroke, procedural time, and duration of hospital stay. Seven studies, which included a total of 8221 patients, were selected. Our study found that TAVR was associated with a lower incidence of stroke and bleeding complications. There was no significant difference in terms of AKI, 30-day all-cause mortality, and 1–2-year all-cause mortality between the two groups. The average procedure time and duration of hospital stay were 170 min less (p ≤ 0.01) and 3.6 days shorter (p < 0.01) in patients with TAVR, respectively. In patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft and severe AS, both TAVR and SAVR are reasonable options. However, TAVR may be associated with a lower incidence of complications like stroke and perioperative bleeding, in addition to a shorter length of stay.

scholarly journals P301 The prognostic value of preoperative left atrial volume after surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with isolated severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A D Mateescu ◽  
A Calin ◽  
M Rosca ◽  
C C Beladan ◽  
R Enache ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Left Atrial ◽  
Prognostic Value ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Volume Index ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Abstract Background Left atrial (LA) volume is an important cardiovascular prognostic marker. However, data regarding the prognostic value of LA volume in severe AS patients (pts) after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) are scarce. Moreover, the predictive role of LA function in AS pts after AVR has not yet been studied. Our study aimed to assess the relationship of LA volume index (LAVi) and function with outcome, in terms of mortality, in severe AS pts who underwent surgical AVR. Methods A total of 360 consecutive pts with isolated severe AS (aortic valve area index ≤ 0.6 cm2/m2) referred to our echocardiography laboratory were prospectively screened. Two hundred and seventeen pts with preserved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (≥50%) and in sinus rhythm were enrolled. All patients underwent a baseline comprehensive echocardiogram, including speckle tracking analysis of both LV and LA strain. Symptomatic pts (142 pts, 65%) that were subject to AVR were followed for a median period of 4 years (IQR 3-6 years). The endpoint was all-cause mortality after AVR. The last update of the survival status was obtained in January 2019. Outcome data were available in 116 severe AS pts that underwent AVR (mean age 63 ± 10 yrs, 56% men), who formed the final study population. Results Seventeen (14%) pts died during follow-up. No significant differences were found between nonsurvivors and survivors after AVR in terms of age and cardiovascular risk factors. Nonsurvivors had higher BNP plasma values (p=.04) at baseline compared with surviving pts. Survivors and nonsurvivors alike exhibited similar preoperative AS severity and LV systolic function parameters (ejection fraction and global longitudinal strain). Moreover, there were no significant differences between the two groups regarding baseline valvuloarterial impedance, average E/e’ ratio, and LA longitudinal deformation parameters. Nonsurvivors had a tendency toward higher LV mass index (p=.08). Nonsurvivors had higher preoperative LA volume index (LAVi)(50 ± 12 vs. 44 ± 10 ml/m2, p=.003). In a multivariable Cox regression analysis adjusted for age, LAVi emerged as the only independent predictor for death in our population study (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.11, p=.02). A cut-off value for LAVi derived from ROC curve analysis was used to construct Kaplan-Meier survival curves. A value of 43 ml/m2 for LAVi predicted all-cause mortality after AVR in severe AS pts with 71% sensitivity and 54% specificity. Conclusions In our study, preoperative LAVi predicted death in severe AS pts after surgical AVR. LAVi assessment may improve preoperative risk stratification in patients with severe AS, however further larger prospective studies are needed. Abstract P301 Figure.

scholarly journals Association of Depression With Mortality in Older Adults Undergoing Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura M. Drudi ◽  
Matthew Ades ◽  
Sena Turkdogan ◽  
Caroline Huynh ◽  
Sandra Lauck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

scholarly journals Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale as a predictor of adverse outcomes among older adults undergoing aortic valve replacement: a protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. e049216
Author(s):  
Tadhg Prendiville ◽  
Aoife Leahy ◽  
Laura Quinlan ◽  
Anastasia Saleh ◽  
Elaine Shanahan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Preoperative Assessment ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Evaluation Tool ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Clinical Frailty Scale

IntroductionFrailty is associated with adverse outcomes relating to cardiac procedures. It has been proposed that frailty scoring should be included in the preoperative assessment of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. We aim to examine the Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), as a predictor of adverse outcomes following aortic valve replacement.Methods and analysisProspective and retrospective cohort studies and randomised controlled trials assessing both the preoperative frailty status (as per the CFS) and incidence of adverse outcomes among older adults undergoing either surgical aortic valve replacement or transcatheter aortic valve replacement will be included. Adverse outcomes will include mortality and periprocedural complications, as well as a composite of 30-day complications. A search will be conducted from 2005 to present using a prespecified search strategy. Studies will be screened for inclusion by two reviewers, with methodological quality assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Relative risk ratios with 95% CIs will be generated for each outcome of interest, comparing frail with non-frail groups. Data will be plotted on forest plots where applicable. The quality of the evidence will be determined using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this study as no primary data will be collected. We will publish the review in a peer-reviewed journal on completion.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020213757.

scholarly journals Valve-in-Valve TAVR versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Early Outcomes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elmar Kuhn ◽  
Amila Cizmic ◽  
Kaveh Eghbalzadeh ◽  
Carolyn Weber ◽  
Parwis Baradaran Rahmanian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Individual Characteristics ◽  
Paravalvular Leak ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Alternative Treatment Option ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Valve In Valve

Abstract Objective This study aimed to assess short-term outcomes of patients with failed aortic valve bioprosthesis undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) or redo surgical aortic valve replacement (rSAVR). Methods Between 2009 and 2019, 90 patients who underwent ViV-TAVR (n = 73) or rSAVR (n = 17) due to failed aortic valve bioprosthesis fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Groups were compared regarding clinical end points, including in-hospital all-cause mortality. Patients with endocarditis and in a need of combined cardiac surgery were excluded from the study. Results ViV-TAVR patients were older (78.0 ± 7.4 vs. 62.1 ± 16.2 years, p = 0.012) and showed a higher prevalence of baseline comorbidities such as atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and arterial hypertension. In-hospital all-cause mortality was higher for rSAVR than in the ViV-TAVR group (17.6 vs. 0%, p < 0.001), whereas intensive care unit stay was more often complicated by blood transfusions for rSAVR patients without differences in cerebrovascular events. The paravalvular leak was detected in 52.1% ViV-TAVR patients compared with 0% among rSAVR patients (p < 0.001). Conclusion ViV-TAVR can be a safe and feasible alternative treatment option in patients with degenerated aortic valve bioprosthesis. The choice of treatment should include the patient's individual characteristics considering ViV-TAVR as a standard of care.

Survival after Aortic Valve Replacement with Bovine or Porcine Valve Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (04) ◽  
pp. 282-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Glaser ◽  
Veronica Jackson ◽  
Anders Franco-Cereceda ◽  
Ulrik Sartipy
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Porcine Bioprosthesis

Background Bovine and porcine bioprostheses are commonly used for surgical aortic valve replacement. It is unknown if the long-term survival differs between the two valve types.We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare survival in patients who underwent aortic valve replacement and received a bovine or a porcine prosthesis. Methods We performed a systematic search of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Cohort studies that compared survival between patients who underwent aortic valve replacement and received either a bovine or a porcine bioprosthesis and that reported overall long-term survival with hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were included. Two authors independently reviewed articles considered for inclusion, extracted the information from each study, and performed the quality assessment. We performed a meta-analysis using a random effects model to calculate the pooled HR (95% CI) for all-cause mortality. We did sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of our findings. Results Seven studies published between 2010 and 2015 were included, and the combined study population was 49,190 patients. Of these, 32,235 (66%) received a bovine, and 16,955 (34%) received a porcine bioprosthesis. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between patients who received a bovine compared with a porcine bioprosthesis (pooled HR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.92–1.09). Heterogeneity between studies was moderate (55.8%, p = 0.04). Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest no difference in survival between patients who received a bovine versus a porcine bioprosthesis after aortic valve replacement. Our study provides valuable evidence for the continuing use of both bovine and porcine bioprosthetic valves for surgical aortic valve replacement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document