| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Ruck, A, et al.
(författare)
-
Paravalvular Aortic Regurgitation Severity Assessed by Quantitative Aortography: ACURATE neo2 versus ACURATE neo Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of clinical medicine. - : MDPI AG. - 2077-0383. ; 10:20
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The new-generation ACURATE neo2 system was commercially released in September 2020. In this study, we sought to compare the aortic regurgitation (AR) severity of the ACURATE neo2 versus the ACURATE neo transcatheter heart valve, using quantitative videodensitometric angiography (qAR). This is a retrospective, Corelab analysis of final post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) aortograms of patients treated with the ACURATE neo2 and ACURATE neo systems. The ACURATE neo2 cohort comprised consecutive patients treated between September 2020 and January 2021 at two centers. The ACURATE neo cohort included consecutive patients treated before September 2020. Our primary objective was to compare AR severity on qAR following TAVI with ACURATE neo2 and ACURATE neo. Out of 401 aortograms, 228 (56.9%) were analyzable, with 120 in the ACURATE neo2 cohort, and 108 in the ACURATE neo cohort. The mean AR fraction was 4.4 ± 4.8% in the neo2 cohort, and 9.9 ± 8.2% in the neo cohort (p < 0.001). Furthermore, moderate or severe AR (qAR > 17%) was detected in 2 aortograms (1.7%) in the neo2 cohort and 15 aortograms (13.9%) in the neo cohort (p < 0.001). Quantitative aortography shows a lower rate of moderate or severe paravalvular AR in what is the first European experience of the new-generation, self-expanding ACURATE neo2 when compared to the first-generation ACURATE neo. Moreover, aortographic data need to be correlated and compared to Core Laboratory-adjudicated 30-day echocardiographic data.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Aktaa, Suleman, et al.
(författare)
-
Data standards for transcatheter aortic valve implantation : the European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomised Trials (EuroHeart).
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes. - : Oxford University Press. - 2058-5225 .- 2058-1742. ; 9:5, s. 529-536
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: Standardized data definitions are necessary for the quantification of quality of care and patient outcomes in observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomised Trials (EuroHeart) project of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) aims to create pan-European data standards for cardiovascular diseases and interventions, including transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).METHODS AND RESULTS: We followed the EuroHeart methodology for cardiovascular data standard development. A Working Group of 29 members representing 12 countries was established and included a patient representative, as well as experts in the management of valvular heart disease from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) and the Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery. We conducted a systematic review of the literature and used a modified Delphi method to reach consensus on a final set of variables. For each variable, the Working Group provided a definition, permissible values and categorized the variable as mandatory (Level 1) or additional (Level 2) based on its clinical importance and feasibility. In total, 93 Level 1 and 113 Level 2 variables were selected, with the level 1 variables providing the dataset for registration of patients undergoing TAVI on the EuroHeart IT platform.CONCLUSION: This document provides details of the EuroHeart data standards for TAVI processes of care and in-hospital outcomes. In the context of EuroHeart, this will facilitate quality improvement, observational research, registry-based RCTs and post-marketing surveillance of devices and pharmacotherapies.
|
|
| 7. |
- Armario, X., et al.
(författare)
-
Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Global TAVR Activity: The COVID-TAVI Study
- 2024
-
Ingår i: JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. - 1936-8798. ; 17:3, s. 374-387
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The COVID-19 pandemic adversely affected health care systems. Patients in need of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are especially susceptible to treatment delays. Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global TAVR activity. Methods: This international registry reported monthly TAVR case volume in participating institutions prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic (January 2018 to December 2021). Hospital-level information on public vs private, urban vs rural, and TAVR volume was collected, as was country-level information on socioeconomic status, COVID-19 incidence, and governmental public health responses. Results: We included 130 centers from 61 countries, including 65,980 TAVR procedures. The first and second pandemic waves were associated with a significant reduction of 15% (P < 0.001) and 7% (P < 0.001) in monthly TAVR case volume, respectively, compared with the prepandemic period. The third pandemic wave was not associated with reduced TAVR activity. A greater reduction in TAVR activity was observed in Africa (−52%; P = 0.001), Central-South America (−33%; P < 0.001), and Asia (−29%; P < 0.001). Private hospitals (P = 0.005), urban areas (P = 0.011), low-volume centers (P = 0.002), countries with lower development (P < 0.001) and economic status (P < 0.001), higher COVID-19 incidence (P < 0.001), and more stringent public health restrictions (P < 0.001) experienced a greater reduction in TAVR activity. Conclusions: TAVR procedural volume declined substantially during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in Africa, Central-South America, and Asia. National socioeconomic status, COVID-19 incidence, and public health responses were associated with treatment delays. This information should inform public health policy in case of future global health crises.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Kolte, Dhaval, et al.
(författare)
-
Culprit Vessel-Only Versus Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Complicating ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction : A Collaborative Meta-Analysis
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Circulation. Cardiovascular Interventions. - : LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. - 1941-7640 .- 1941-7632. ; 10:11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel disease presenting with cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction remains unknown. Methods and Results Databases were searched from 1999 to October 2016. Studies comparing immediate/single-stage multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) versus culprit vessel-only PCI (CO-PCI) in patients with multivessel disease, ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, and cardiogenic shock were included. Primary end point was short-term (in-hospital or 30 days) mortality. Secondary end points included long-term mortality, cardiovascular death, reinfarction, and repeat revascularization. Safety end points were in-hospital stroke, renal failure, and major bleeding. The meta-analysis included 11 nonrandomized studies and 5850 patients (1157 MV-PCI and 4693 CO-PCI). There was no significant difference in short-term mortality with MV-PCI versus CO-PCI (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-1.43; P=0.61). Similarly, there were no significant differences in long-term mortality (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.54-1.30; P=0.43), cardiovascular death (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.42-1.23; P=0.23), reinfarction (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.84-3.26; P=0.15), or repeat revascularization (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.76-1.69; P=0.54) between the 2 groups. There was a nonsignificant trend toward higher in-hospital stroke (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.98-2.72; P=0.06) and renal failure (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.98-1.72; P=0.06), with no difference in major bleeding (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.39-5.63; P=0.57) with MV-PCI when compared with CO-PCI. Conclusions This meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies suggests that in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, there may be no significant benefit with single-stage MV-PCI compared with CO-PCI. Given the limitations of observational data, randomized trials are needed to determine the role of MV-PCI in this setting.
|
|
