scholarly journals Heart Team for Optimal Management of Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis—Long-Term Outcomes and Quality of Life from Tertiary Cardiovascular Care Center

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (22) ◽  
pp. 5408
Author(s):  
Szymon Jonik ◽  
Michał Marchel ◽  
Ewa Pędzich-Placha ◽  
Zenon Huczek ◽  
Janusz Kochman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Heart Team ◽  
Secondary Endpoints

Background: This retrospective study was proposed to investigate outcomes of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) after implementation of various treatment strategies following dedicated Heart Team (HT) decisions. Methods: Primary and secondary endpoints and quality of life during a median follow-up of 866 days of patients with severe AS qualified after HT discussion to: optimal medical treatment (OMT) alone, OMT and transcather aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or OMT and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) were evaluated. As the primary endpoint composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal disabling strokes and non-fatal rehospitalizations for AS were considered, while other clinical outcomes were determined as secondary endpoints. Results: From 2016 to 2019, 176 HT meetings were held, and a total of 482 participants with severe AS and completely implemented HT decisions (OMT, TAVR and SAVR for 79, 318 and 85, respectively) were included in the final analysis. SAVR and TAVR were found to be superior to OMT for primary and all secondary endpoints (p < 0.05). Comparing interventional strategies only, TAVR was associated with reduced risk of acute kidney injury, new onset of atrial fibrillation and major bleeding, while the superiority of SAVR for major vascular complications and need for permanent pacemaker implantation was observed (p < 0.05). The quality of life assessed at the end of follow-up was significantly better for patients who underwent TAVR or SAVR than in OMT-group (p < 0.05). Conclusions: We demonstrated that after careful implementation of HT decisions interventional strategies compared to OMT only provide superior outcomes and quality of life for patients with AS.

scholarly journals The effect of aortic valve replacement on quality of life in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis

2012 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. W. A. van Geldorp ◽  
H. J. Heuvelman ◽  
A. P. Kappetein ◽  
J. J. V. Busschbach ◽  
J. J. M. Takkenberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis

P5986Clinical outcomes of age in patients with severe aortic stenosis treated with Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
E Munoz-Garcia ◽  
M Munoz-Garcia ◽  
A J Munoz Garcia ◽  
F Carrasco-Chinchilla ◽  
A J Dominguez-Franco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Vascular Complications ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve

Abstract Transcatheter Aortic valve Replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for patients considered at high or prohibitive operative risk. It is widely known the short and mid-term outcomes, however, is limited about long-term outcomes in according to age. The aim of this study was to determine the survival and the clinical outcomes on based of age. after TAVR with the CoreValve prosthesis. Methods From April 2008 to December 2017, the CoreValve and Sapiens 3 prosthesis were implanted in 667 patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis with deemed high risk on base to age, <80 years and ≥80 years old Results The mean age in patients <80 compared with ≥80 years, was 73.6±7 vs. 83.4±2.8 years and the logistic EuroSCORE and STS score were 16.3±11% vs. 18.1±11%. In-hospital mortality was 3.4%, and the combined endpoint of death, vascular complications, myocardial infarction, majopr bleeding or stroke had a rate of 18.3%. The late mortality (beyond 30 days) was 40.5%. When compared both groups, there were no differences for the presence of threatening bleeding 3.5% vs. 3.6% (HR = 1.033 [IC95% 0.452–2.360], p=0.557), myocardial infarction4.2% vs. 2.9% (HR = 0.67 [IC95% 0.290–1,530], p=0.0.226), stroke 8.9% vs. 9.4% (HR = 1.067 [IC95% 0.625–1.821], p=0.814) and mortality 44.5% vs. 41.1% (HR=0.971388 [IC95% 0.639–1.188], p=0.214) and there was difference in between groups in hospitalizations for heart failure 13.8% vs. 7.7% (HR = 1.374 [IC95% 1.037–1.821], p=0.008. Survival at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 were similar in both groups (86.9% vs. 89.8%, 78.4 vs. 78.3%, 65.5 vs. 72.5%, 57.9% vs. 62.8% and 51.1 vs. 52.8%>; log Rank 0.992, p=0.319), respectively, after a mean follow-up of 43.9±27 months. Conclusions TAVR is associated with significant survival benefit throughout 3.2 years of follow-up. Survival during follow-up was similar in patients with <80 compared with ≥80 years old.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document