Cargando…

Comparison of Periprocedural and Intermediate-Term Outcomes of TAVI in Patients with Ejection Fraction ≤ 20% vs. Patients with 20% < EF ≤ 40%

Treatment of congestive heart failure (CHF) with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and severe aortic stenosis (AS) is challenging, yet transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a suitable treatment option in such patients. We compared the periprocedural outcomes of TAVR i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kodra, Arber, Cinelli, Michael, Alexander, Renita, Hamfreth, Rahming, Wang, Denny, Thampi, Shankar, Basman, Craig, Kliger, Chad, Scheinerman, Jacob, Pirelli, Luigi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10056875/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36983390
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12062390
_version_ 1785016230015401984
author Kodra, Arber
Cinelli, Michael
Alexander, Renita
Hamfreth, Rahming
Wang, Denny
Thampi, Shankar
Basman, Craig
Kliger, Chad
Scheinerman, Jacob
Pirelli, Luigi
author_facet Kodra, Arber
Cinelli, Michael
Alexander, Renita
Hamfreth, Rahming
Wang, Denny
Thampi, Shankar
Basman, Craig
Kliger, Chad
Scheinerman, Jacob
Pirelli, Luigi
author_sort Kodra, Arber
collection PubMed
description Treatment of congestive heart failure (CHF) with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and severe aortic stenosis (AS) is challenging, yet transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a suitable treatment option in such patients. We compared the periprocedural outcomes of TAVR in patients with an ejection fraction (EF) of ≤20% (VLEF group) to patients with an EF > 20% to ≤40% (LEF group). We included patients with severe AS and reduced LV ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 40%) who underwent TAVR at four centers within Northwell Health between January 2016 and December 2020. Over 2000 consecutive patients were analyzed, of which 355 patients met the inclusion criteria. The primary composite endpoint was in-hospital mortality, moderate or greater paravalvular (PVL), stroke, conversion to open surgery, aortic valve re-intervention, and/or need for PPM. Secondary endpoints were length of stay, NYHA classification at 1 month and 1 year, mortality at 1 month and 1 year, mean valve gradient at 1 month, KCCQ score at 1 month, and ≥ moderate PVL at 1 month. There was no difference in the primary composite endpoint between the two groups (23.6% for VLEF vs. 25.3% for LEF, p = 0.29). During TAVR placement, 40% of patients in the VLEF group required ≥1 vasopressors for hypotension lasting ≥30 min vs. only 21% of patients in the LEF group (p < 0.01). Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use during procedure was greater in the VLEF group (9% vs. 1%, p < 0.01)—all placed post TAVR. Emergency ECMO use was higher in the VLEF group as well (5% vs. 0%). Total length of stay was significantly different between the two groups as well (6 days vs. 3 days, p < 0.01). Both groups had a change in LVEF of ~10%. One-year outcomes were similar between the groups. All-cause mortality at 1 year was not significantly different at 1 year (13% for VLEF vs. 11% for LEF), and KCC scores were also similar (77.54 vs. 74.97). Mean aortic valve gradients were also similar (12 mmHg vs. 11 mmHg, p = 0.48). Our study suggests that patients with EF ≤ 20% can safely have TAVR with similar periprocedural outcomes compared to patients with EF > 20% to ≤40% despite higher rates of vasopressor and mechanical support.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10056875
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100568752023-03-30 Comparison of Periprocedural and Intermediate-Term Outcomes of TAVI in Patients with Ejection Fraction ≤ 20% vs. Patients with 20% < EF ≤ 40% Kodra, Arber Cinelli, Michael Alexander, Renita Hamfreth, Rahming Wang, Denny Thampi, Shankar Basman, Craig Kliger, Chad Scheinerman, Jacob Pirelli, Luigi J Clin Med Article Treatment of congestive heart failure (CHF) with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and severe aortic stenosis (AS) is challenging, yet transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a suitable treatment option in such patients. We compared the periprocedural outcomes of TAVR in patients with an ejection fraction (EF) of ≤20% (VLEF group) to patients with an EF > 20% to ≤40% (LEF group). We included patients with severe AS and reduced LV ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 40%) who underwent TAVR at four centers within Northwell Health between January 2016 and December 2020. Over 2000 consecutive patients were analyzed, of which 355 patients met the inclusion criteria. The primary composite endpoint was in-hospital mortality, moderate or greater paravalvular (PVL), stroke, conversion to open surgery, aortic valve re-intervention, and/or need for PPM. Secondary endpoints were length of stay, NYHA classification at 1 month and 1 year, mortality at 1 month and 1 year, mean valve gradient at 1 month, KCCQ score at 1 month, and ≥ moderate PVL at 1 month. There was no difference in the primary composite endpoint between the two groups (23.6% for VLEF vs. 25.3% for LEF, p = 0.29). During TAVR placement, 40% of patients in the VLEF group required ≥1 vasopressors for hypotension lasting ≥30 min vs. only 21% of patients in the LEF group (p < 0.01). Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use during procedure was greater in the VLEF group (9% vs. 1%, p < 0.01)—all placed post TAVR. Emergency ECMO use was higher in the VLEF group as well (5% vs. 0%). Total length of stay was significantly different between the two groups as well (6 days vs. 3 days, p < 0.01). Both groups had a change in LVEF of ~10%. One-year outcomes were similar between the groups. All-cause mortality at 1 year was not significantly different at 1 year (13% for VLEF vs. 11% for LEF), and KCC scores were also similar (77.54 vs. 74.97). Mean aortic valve gradients were also similar (12 mmHg vs. 11 mmHg, p = 0.48). Our study suggests that patients with EF ≤ 20% can safely have TAVR with similar periprocedural outcomes compared to patients with EF > 20% to ≤40% despite higher rates of vasopressor and mechanical support. MDPI 2023-03-20 /pmc/articles/PMC10056875/ /pubmed/36983390 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12062390 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Kodra, Arber
Cinelli, Michael
Alexander, Renita
Hamfreth, Rahming
Wang, Denny
Thampi, Shankar
Basman, Craig
Kliger, Chad
Scheinerman, Jacob
Pirelli, Luigi
Comparison of Periprocedural and Intermediate-Term Outcomes of TAVI in Patients with Ejection Fraction ≤ 20% vs. Patients with 20% < EF ≤ 40%
title Comparison of Periprocedural and Intermediate-Term Outcomes of TAVI in Patients with Ejection Fraction ≤ 20% vs. Patients with 20% < EF ≤ 40%
title_full Comparison of Periprocedural and Intermediate-Term Outcomes of TAVI in Patients with Ejection Fraction ≤ 20% vs. Patients with 20% < EF ≤ 40%
title_fullStr Comparison of Periprocedural and Intermediate-Term Outcomes of TAVI in Patients with Ejection Fraction ≤ 20% vs. Patients with 20% < EF ≤ 40%
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Periprocedural and Intermediate-Term Outcomes of TAVI in Patients with Ejection Fraction ≤ 20% vs. Patients with 20% < EF ≤ 40%
title_short Comparison of Periprocedural and Intermediate-Term Outcomes of TAVI in Patients with Ejection Fraction ≤ 20% vs. Patients with 20% < EF ≤ 40%
title_sort comparison of periprocedural and intermediate-term outcomes of tavi in patients with ejection fraction ≤ 20% vs. patients with 20% < ef ≤ 40%
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10056875/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36983390
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12062390
work_keys_str_mv AT kodraarber comparisonofperiproceduralandintermediatetermoutcomesoftaviinpatientswithejectionfraction20vspatientswith20ef40
AT cinellimichael comparisonofperiproceduralandintermediatetermoutcomesoftaviinpatientswithejectionfraction20vspatientswith20ef40
AT alexanderrenita comparisonofperiproceduralandintermediatetermoutcomesoftaviinpatientswithejectionfraction20vspatientswith20ef40
AT hamfrethrahming comparisonofperiproceduralandintermediatetermoutcomesoftaviinpatientswithejectionfraction20vspatientswith20ef40
AT wangdenny comparisonofperiproceduralandintermediatetermoutcomesoftaviinpatientswithejectionfraction20vspatientswith20ef40
AT thampishankar comparisonofperiproceduralandintermediatetermoutcomesoftaviinpatientswithejectionfraction20vspatientswith20ef40
AT basmancraig comparisonofperiproceduralandintermediatetermoutcomesoftaviinpatientswithejectionfraction20vspatientswith20ef40
AT kligerchad comparisonofperiproceduralandintermediatetermoutcomesoftaviinpatientswithejectionfraction20vspatientswith20ef40
AT scheinermanjacob comparisonofperiproceduralandintermediatetermoutcomesoftaviinpatientswithejectionfraction20vspatientswith20ef40
AT pirelliluigi comparisonofperiproceduralandintermediatetermoutcomesoftaviinpatientswithejectionfraction20vspatientswith20ef40