These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Outcomes Among Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Minimally Invasive Strategy Versus Conventional Strategy.
    Author: Panhwar MS, Li J, Zidar DA, Clevenger J, Lipinski J, Patel TR, Karim A, Saric P, Patel SM, Kalra A, Attizzani G.
    Journal: J Invasive Cardiol; 2019 Mar; 31(3):15-20. PubMed ID: 30555054.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of TAVR technique on in-hospital and 30-day outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and reduced ejection fraction (EF). BACKGROUND: Patients with AS and concomitant low EF may be at risk for adverse hemodynamic effects from general anesthesia utilized in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) via the conventional strategy (CS). These patients may be better suited for the minimally invasive strategy (MIS), which employs conscious sedation. However, data are lacking that compare MIS to CS in patients with AS and concomitant low EF. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we identified all patients with low EF (<50%) undergoing transfemoral MIS-TAVR vs CS-TAVR between March 2011 and May 2018. Our primary endpoint was defined as the composite of in-hospital mortality and major periprocedural bleeding or vascular complications. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy patients had EF <50%, while 154 patients had EF ≤35%. Overall, a total of 236 patients were in the MIS group and 34 were in the CS group. Baseline characteristics between the two groups were similar except for Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score (MIS 8.4 ± 5.1 vs CS 11.7 ± 6.8; P<.01). There were no differences between the two groups in incidence of the primary endpoint (MIS 5.5% vs CS 8.8%; odds ratio for MIS, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-2.23; P=.45). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe AS and reduced EF, MIS was not associated with adverse in-hospital or 30-day clinical outcomes compared with CS. In these patients, MIS may be a suitable alternative to CS without compromising clinical outcomes.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]