CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Evaluation and Management of Nonculprit Lesions in STEMI Circulating MicroRNAs and Monocyte-Platelet Aggregate Formation in Acute Coronary Syndrome Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes: From Pathogenesis to the Fine Line Between Bleeding and Ischemic Risk Major trials in coronary intervention from 2018 Association Between Collateral Circulation and Myocardial Viability Evaluated by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Coronary Artery Chronic Total Occlusion Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock Epinephrine Versus Norepinephrine for Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction Risk Factors Associated With Major Cardiovascular Events 1 Year After Acute Myocardial Infarction Management of Myocardial Revascularization Failure: An Expert Consensus Document of the EAPCI

Original ResearchVolume 13, Issue 5, March 2020

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty as a Bridge to Aortic Valve Replacement: A Contemporary Nationwide Perspective

A Kawsara, F Alqahtani, MF Eleid et al. Keywords: aortic stenosis; BAV; TAVR

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - This study sought to use a national representative database to assess the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) as a bridge to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in contemporary practice.

 

BACKGROUND - Nationwide data on the use and outcomes of BAV as a bridge to TAVR are limited.

 

METHODS - Patients who underwent BAV between January and June in 2015 and 2016 were identified in the National Readmission Database. We assessed rate of subsequent TAVR following BAV, and predictors and timing of subsequent TAVR. We then identified a group of patients who had direct TAVR (without prior BAV) in the original 2015 to 2016 National Readmission Database dataset. We compared in-hospital outcomes following TAVR between patients with prior bridging BAV and those undergoing direct TAVR.

 

RESULTS - Among the 3,691 included patients 1,426 (38.6%) had subsequent TAVR. Timing of TAVR was pre-discharge in 7.4%, within 30 days in 35%, between 31 and 90 days in 47%, between 91 and 180 days in 14%, and >180 days in 4%. Negative predictors of subsequent TAVR included prior defibrillator (odds ratio [OR]: 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36 to 0.85), dementia (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.79), malnutrition (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.90), and malignancy (OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.82). In propensity-score matched cohorts of patients who underwent direct TAVR versus those with prior BAV, in-hospital mortality during TAVR admission was similar (3.7% vs. 3.5%; p = 0.91). Major complications, length of stay, and discharge disposition were also comparable. However, cost of the hospitalization was higher in the direct TAVR group.

 

CONCLUSIONS - About 40% of BAV patients undergo subsequent TAVR mostly within 90 days. In-hospital outcomes of TAVR in these patients were comparable with propensity-score matched patients who underwent TAVR without prior BAV. Further investigations are needed to define the role of BAV in contemporary practice.