TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE IMPLANTATION AND OPEN AORTIC SURGERY: COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF RESULTS

Aim. The aim of this study is to compare hospital and long-term outcomes in patients with low surgical risk after aortic stenosis correction in surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).Materials and methods. Patients with aortic stenosis (AS) were i...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: V. I. Ganyukov, R. S. Tarasov, I. E. Vereshchagin, N. A. Kochergin, A. N. Stasev, O. A. Nagirnyak, L. S. Barbarash
Format: Article
Language:Russian
Published: InterMedservice 2018-12-01
Series:Евразийский Кардиологический Журнал
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.heartj.asia/jour/article/view/305
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849692962332606464
author V. I. Ganyukov
R. S. Tarasov
I. E. Vereshchagin
N. A. Kochergin
A. N. Stasev
O. A. Nagirnyak
L. S. Barbarash
author_facet V. I. Ganyukov
R. S. Tarasov
I. E. Vereshchagin
N. A. Kochergin
A. N. Stasev
O. A. Nagirnyak
L. S. Barbarash
author_sort V. I. Ganyukov
collection DOAJ
description Aim. The aim of this study is to compare hospital and long-term outcomes in patients with low surgical risk after aortic stenosis correction in surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).Materials and methods. Patients with aortic stenosis (AS) were included in the study. The main criterion for inclusion - the presence of indications for surgical correction of an isolated aortic valve defect. The first group included patients after TAVI (n = 11). As a control group, patients who underwent surgical correction aortic stenosis (n = 23). The TAVI group used non-repositories CoreValve (Medtronic) and repositioned Lotus (Boston Scientific) valves. Biological prosthesis Uniline (KemKor) was used in the group of surgical patients. The efficacy of the interventions was evaluated at the hospital and annual follow-up, based on the analysis of the combined endpoint, and major adverse cardiovascular events.Results. The mean age of the patients was 66.9±5.7 years in the SAVR group and 75.3±4.1 years in the TAVI group (р=0,003). The average score for EuroSCORE II was 3.49±0.3 in the SAVR group and 3.93±1.2 in the TAVI group (р=0,31). Repositionable and non-repositionable valves were implanted in 2 and 9 cases, respectively. The combined endpoint was noted in one patient in the TAVI group and in four patients in the SAVR group according to the annual observation results. There are three (13%) fatal outcomes in the surgical prosthesis group.Conclusion. The possibility of using TAVI in low-risk patients with aortic stenosis was demonstrated on the basis of comparable results of evaluating efficacy and safety with SAVR in 1-year follow-up.
format Article
id doaj-art-d59b2d39fdc8441ebbc2c39692762c7d
institution DOAJ
issn 2225-1685
2305-0748
language Russian
publishDate 2018-12-01
publisher InterMedservice
record_format Article
series Евразийский Кардиологический Журнал
spelling doaj-art-d59b2d39fdc8441ebbc2c39692762c7d2025-08-20T03:20:34ZrusInterMedserviceЕвразийский Кардиологический Журнал2225-16852305-07482018-12-010441810.38109/2225-1685-2018-4-4-18304TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE IMPLANTATION AND OPEN AORTIC SURGERY: COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF RESULTSV. I. Ganyukov0R. S. Tarasov1I. E. Vereshchagin2N. A. Kochergin3A. N. Stasev4O. A. Nagirnyak5L. S. Barbarash6Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution “Research Institute for Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases”Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution “Research Institute for Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases”Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution “Research Institute for Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases”Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution “Research Institute for Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases”Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution “Research Institute for Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases”Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution “Research Institute for Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases”Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution “Research Institute for Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases”Aim. The aim of this study is to compare hospital and long-term outcomes in patients with low surgical risk after aortic stenosis correction in surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).Materials and methods. Patients with aortic stenosis (AS) were included in the study. The main criterion for inclusion - the presence of indications for surgical correction of an isolated aortic valve defect. The first group included patients after TAVI (n = 11). As a control group, patients who underwent surgical correction aortic stenosis (n = 23). The TAVI group used non-repositories CoreValve (Medtronic) and repositioned Lotus (Boston Scientific) valves. Biological prosthesis Uniline (KemKor) was used in the group of surgical patients. The efficacy of the interventions was evaluated at the hospital and annual follow-up, based on the analysis of the combined endpoint, and major adverse cardiovascular events.Results. The mean age of the patients was 66.9±5.7 years in the SAVR group and 75.3±4.1 years in the TAVI group (р=0,003). The average score for EuroSCORE II was 3.49±0.3 in the SAVR group and 3.93±1.2 in the TAVI group (р=0,31). Repositionable and non-repositionable valves were implanted in 2 and 9 cases, respectively. The combined endpoint was noted in one patient in the TAVI group and in four patients in the SAVR group according to the annual observation results. There are three (13%) fatal outcomes in the surgical prosthesis group.Conclusion. The possibility of using TAVI in low-risk patients with aortic stenosis was demonstrated on the basis of comparable results of evaluating efficacy and safety with SAVR in 1-year follow-up.https://www.heartj.asia/jour/article/view/305aortic valve stenosistranscatheter aortic valve implantation
spellingShingle V. I. Ganyukov
R. S. Tarasov
I. E. Vereshchagin
N. A. Kochergin
A. N. Stasev
O. A. Nagirnyak
L. S. Barbarash
TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE IMPLANTATION AND OPEN AORTIC SURGERY: COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF RESULTS
Евразийский Кардиологический Журнал
aortic valve stenosis
transcatheter aortic valve implantation
title TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE IMPLANTATION AND OPEN AORTIC SURGERY: COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF RESULTS
title_full TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE IMPLANTATION AND OPEN AORTIC SURGERY: COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF RESULTS
title_fullStr TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE IMPLANTATION AND OPEN AORTIC SURGERY: COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF RESULTS
title_full_unstemmed TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE IMPLANTATION AND OPEN AORTIC SURGERY: COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF RESULTS
title_short TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE IMPLANTATION AND OPEN AORTIC SURGERY: COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF RESULTS
title_sort transcatheter aortic valve implantation and open aortic surgery comparative assessment of results
topic aortic valve stenosis
transcatheter aortic valve implantation
url https://www.heartj.asia/jour/article/view/305
work_keys_str_mv AT viganyukov transcatheteraorticvalveimplantationandopenaorticsurgerycomparativeassessmentofresults
AT rstarasov transcatheteraorticvalveimplantationandopenaorticsurgerycomparativeassessmentofresults
AT ievereshchagin transcatheteraorticvalveimplantationandopenaorticsurgerycomparativeassessmentofresults
AT nakochergin transcatheteraorticvalveimplantationandopenaorticsurgerycomparativeassessmentofresults
AT anstasev transcatheteraorticvalveimplantationandopenaorticsurgerycomparativeassessmentofresults
AT oanagirnyak transcatheteraorticvalveimplantationandopenaorticsurgerycomparativeassessmentofresults
AT lsbarbarash transcatheteraorticvalveimplantationandopenaorticsurgerycomparativeassessmentofresults