Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus redo surgery for failing surgical aortic bioprostheses: a multicentre propensity score analysis

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Standard

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus redo surgery for failing surgical aortic bioprostheses : a multicentre propensity score analysis. / Spaziano, Marco; Mylotte, Darren; Thériault-Lauzier, Pascal; De Backer, Ole; Søndergaard, Lars; Bosmans, Johan; Debry, Nicolas; Modine, Thomas; Barbanti, Marco; Tamburino, Corrado; Sinning, Jan-Malte; Grube, Eberhard; Nickenig, Georg; Mellert, Fritz; Bleiziffer, Sabine; Lange, Rüdiger; de Varennes, Benoit; Lachapelle, Kevin; Martucci, Giuseppe; Piazza, Nicolo.

I: EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology, Bind 13, Nr. 10, 20.11.2017, s. 1149-1156.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Harvard

Spaziano, M, Mylotte, D, Thériault-Lauzier, P, De Backer, O, Søndergaard, L, Bosmans, J, Debry, N, Modine, T, Barbanti, M, Tamburino, C, Sinning, J-M, Grube, E, Nickenig, G, Mellert, F, Bleiziffer, S, Lange, R, de Varennes, B, Lachapelle, K, Martucci, G & Piazza, N 2017, 'Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus redo surgery for failing surgical aortic bioprostheses: a multicentre propensity score analysis', EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology, bind 13, nr. 10, s. 1149-1156. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00303

APA

Spaziano, M., Mylotte, D., Thériault-Lauzier, P., De Backer, O., Søndergaard, L., Bosmans, J., Debry, N., Modine, T., Barbanti, M., Tamburino, C., Sinning, J-M., Grube, E., Nickenig, G., Mellert, F., Bleiziffer, S., Lange, R., de Varennes, B., Lachapelle, K., Martucci, G., & Piazza, N. (2017). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus redo surgery for failing surgical aortic bioprostheses: a multicentre propensity score analysis. EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 13(10), 1149-1156. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00303

Vancouver

Spaziano M, Mylotte D, Thériault-Lauzier P, De Backer O, Søndergaard L, Bosmans J o.a. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus redo surgery for failing surgical aortic bioprostheses: a multicentre propensity score analysis. EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2017 nov. 20;13(10):1149-1156. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00303

Author

Spaziano, Marco ; Mylotte, Darren ; Thériault-Lauzier, Pascal ; De Backer, Ole ; Søndergaard, Lars ; Bosmans, Johan ; Debry, Nicolas ; Modine, Thomas ; Barbanti, Marco ; Tamburino, Corrado ; Sinning, Jan-Malte ; Grube, Eberhard ; Nickenig, Georg ; Mellert, Fritz ; Bleiziffer, Sabine ; Lange, Rüdiger ; de Varennes, Benoit ; Lachapelle, Kevin ; Martucci, Giuseppe ; Piazza, Nicolo. / Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus redo surgery for failing surgical aortic bioprostheses : a multicentre propensity score analysis. I: EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2017 ; Bind 13, Nr. 10. s. 1149-1156.

Bibtex

@article{663782a1747947e1a0dd577057ce15a1,
title = "Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus redo surgery for failing surgical aortic bioprostheses: a multicentre propensity score analysis",
abstract = "AIMS: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for a failing surgical bioprosthesis (TAV-in-SAV) has become an alternative for patients at high risk for redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR). Comparisons between these approaches are non-existent. This study aimed to compare clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients undergoing TAV-in-SAV versus redo-SAVR after accounting for baseline differences by propensity score matching.METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients from seven centres in Europe and Canada who had undergone either TAV-in-SAV (n=79) or redo-SAVR (n=126) were identified. Significant independent predictors used for propensity scoring were age, NYHA functional class, number of prior cardiac surgeries, urgent procedure, pulmonary hypertension, and COPD grade. Using a calliper range of ±0.05, a total of 78 well-matched patient pairs were found. All-cause mortality was similar between groups at 30 days (6.4% redo-SAVR vs. 3.9% TAV-in-SAV; p=0.49) and one year (13.1% redo-SAVR vs. 12.3% TAV-in-SAV; p=0.80). Both groups also showed similar incidences of stroke (0% redo-SAVR vs. 1.3% TAV-in-SAV; p=1.0) and new pacemaker implantation (10.3% redo-SAVR vs. 10.3% TAV-in-SAV; p=1.0). The incidence of acute kidney injury requiring dialysis was numerically lower in the TAV-in-SAV group (11.5% redo-SAVR vs. 3.8% TAV-in-SAV; p=0.13). The TAV-in-SAV group had a significantly shorter median total hospital stay (12 days redo-SAVR vs. 9 days TAV-in-SAV; p=0.001).CONCLUSIONS: Patients with aortic bioprosthesis failure treated with either redo-SAVR or TAV-in-SAV have similar 30-day and one-year clinical outcomes.",
author = "Marco Spaziano and Darren Mylotte and Pascal Th{\'e}riault-Lauzier and {De Backer}, Ole and Lars S{\o}ndergaard and Johan Bosmans and Nicolas Debry and Thomas Modine and Marco Barbanti and Corrado Tamburino and Jan-Malte Sinning and Eberhard Grube and Georg Nickenig and Fritz Mellert and Sabine Bleiziffer and R{\"u}diger Lange and {de Varennes}, Benoit and Kevin Lachapelle and Giuseppe Martucci and Nicolo Piazza",
year = "2017",
month = nov,
day = "20",
doi = "10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00303",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "1149--1156",
journal = "EuroIntervention",
issn = "1774-024X",
publisher = "Europa Digital & Publishing",
number = "10",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus redo surgery for failing surgical aortic bioprostheses

T2 - a multicentre propensity score analysis

AU - Spaziano, Marco

AU - Mylotte, Darren

AU - Thériault-Lauzier, Pascal

AU - De Backer, Ole

AU - Søndergaard, Lars

AU - Bosmans, Johan

AU - Debry, Nicolas

AU - Modine, Thomas

AU - Barbanti, Marco

AU - Tamburino, Corrado

AU - Sinning, Jan-Malte

AU - Grube, Eberhard

AU - Nickenig, Georg

AU - Mellert, Fritz

AU - Bleiziffer, Sabine

AU - Lange, Rüdiger

AU - de Varennes, Benoit

AU - Lachapelle, Kevin

AU - Martucci, Giuseppe

AU - Piazza, Nicolo

PY - 2017/11/20

Y1 - 2017/11/20

N2 - AIMS: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for a failing surgical bioprosthesis (TAV-in-SAV) has become an alternative for patients at high risk for redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR). Comparisons between these approaches are non-existent. This study aimed to compare clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients undergoing TAV-in-SAV versus redo-SAVR after accounting for baseline differences by propensity score matching.METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients from seven centres in Europe and Canada who had undergone either TAV-in-SAV (n=79) or redo-SAVR (n=126) were identified. Significant independent predictors used for propensity scoring were age, NYHA functional class, number of prior cardiac surgeries, urgent procedure, pulmonary hypertension, and COPD grade. Using a calliper range of ±0.05, a total of 78 well-matched patient pairs were found. All-cause mortality was similar between groups at 30 days (6.4% redo-SAVR vs. 3.9% TAV-in-SAV; p=0.49) and one year (13.1% redo-SAVR vs. 12.3% TAV-in-SAV; p=0.80). Both groups also showed similar incidences of stroke (0% redo-SAVR vs. 1.3% TAV-in-SAV; p=1.0) and new pacemaker implantation (10.3% redo-SAVR vs. 10.3% TAV-in-SAV; p=1.0). The incidence of acute kidney injury requiring dialysis was numerically lower in the TAV-in-SAV group (11.5% redo-SAVR vs. 3.8% TAV-in-SAV; p=0.13). The TAV-in-SAV group had a significantly shorter median total hospital stay (12 days redo-SAVR vs. 9 days TAV-in-SAV; p=0.001).CONCLUSIONS: Patients with aortic bioprosthesis failure treated with either redo-SAVR or TAV-in-SAV have similar 30-day and one-year clinical outcomes.

AB - AIMS: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for a failing surgical bioprosthesis (TAV-in-SAV) has become an alternative for patients at high risk for redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR). Comparisons between these approaches are non-existent. This study aimed to compare clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients undergoing TAV-in-SAV versus redo-SAVR after accounting for baseline differences by propensity score matching.METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients from seven centres in Europe and Canada who had undergone either TAV-in-SAV (n=79) or redo-SAVR (n=126) were identified. Significant independent predictors used for propensity scoring were age, NYHA functional class, number of prior cardiac surgeries, urgent procedure, pulmonary hypertension, and COPD grade. Using a calliper range of ±0.05, a total of 78 well-matched patient pairs were found. All-cause mortality was similar between groups at 30 days (6.4% redo-SAVR vs. 3.9% TAV-in-SAV; p=0.49) and one year (13.1% redo-SAVR vs. 12.3% TAV-in-SAV; p=0.80). Both groups also showed similar incidences of stroke (0% redo-SAVR vs. 1.3% TAV-in-SAV; p=1.0) and new pacemaker implantation (10.3% redo-SAVR vs. 10.3% TAV-in-SAV; p=1.0). The incidence of acute kidney injury requiring dialysis was numerically lower in the TAV-in-SAV group (11.5% redo-SAVR vs. 3.8% TAV-in-SAV; p=0.13). The TAV-in-SAV group had a significantly shorter median total hospital stay (12 days redo-SAVR vs. 9 days TAV-in-SAV; p=0.001).CONCLUSIONS: Patients with aortic bioprosthesis failure treated with either redo-SAVR or TAV-in-SAV have similar 30-day and one-year clinical outcomes.

U2 - 10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00303

DO - 10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00303

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 28760721

VL - 13

SP - 1149

EP - 1156

JO - EuroIntervention

JF - EuroIntervention

SN - 1774-024X

IS - 10

ER -

ID: 195552475