Aortic valve performance after remodelling versus reimplantation in a propensity-matched comparison

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00023884%3A_____%2F24%3A00010012" target="_blank" >RIV/00023884:_____/24:00010012 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00216224:14110/24:00136840 RIV/00216208:11110/24:10482743 RIV/00216208:11130/24:10482743 RIV/00216208:11150/24:10482743 a 3 dalších

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://academic.oup.com/ejcts/article/66/2/ezae234/7727652?login=true" target="_blank" >https://academic.oup.com/ejcts/article/66/2/ezae234/7727652?login=true</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezae234" target="_blank" >10.1093/ejcts/ezae234</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Aortic valve performance after remodelling versus reimplantation in a propensity-matched comparison

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

OBJECTIVES: Both aortic root remodelling and aortic valve (AV) reimplantation have been used for valve-sparing root replacement in patients with aortic root aneurysm with or without aortic regurgitation. There is no clear evidence to support one technique over the another. This study aimed to compare remodelling with basal ring annuloplasty versus reimplantation on a multicentre level with the use of propensity-score matching. METHODS: This was a retrospective international multicentre study of patients undergoing remodelling or reimplantation between 2010 and 2021. Twenty-three preoperative covariates (including root dimensions and valve characteristics) were used for propensity-score matching. Perioperative outcomes were analysed along with longer-term freedom from AV reoperation/reintervention and other major valve-related events. RESULTS: Throughout the study period, 297 patients underwent remodelling and 281 had reimplantation. Using propensity-score matching, 112 pairs were selected and further compared. We did not find a statistically significant difference in perioperative outcomes between the matched groups. Patients after remodelling had significantly higher reintervention risk than after reimplantation over the median follow-up of 6 years (P = 0.016). The remodelling technique (P = 0.02), need for decalcification (P = 0.03) and degree of immediate postoperative AV regurgitation (P < 0.001) were defined as independent risk factors for later AV reintervention. After exclusion of patients with worse than mild AV regurgitation immediately after repair, both techniques functioned comparably (P = 0.089). CONCLUSIONS: AV reimplantation was associated with better valve function in longer-term postoperatively than remodelling. If optimal immediate repair outcome was achieved, both techniques provided comparable AV function.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Aortic valve performance after remodelling versus reimplantation in a propensity-matched comparison

Popis výsledku anglicky

OBJECTIVES: Both aortic root remodelling and aortic valve (AV) reimplantation have been used for valve-sparing root replacement in patients with aortic root aneurysm with or without aortic regurgitation. There is no clear evidence to support one technique over the another. This study aimed to compare remodelling with basal ring annuloplasty versus reimplantation on a multicentre level with the use of propensity-score matching. METHODS: This was a retrospective international multicentre study of patients undergoing remodelling or reimplantation between 2010 and 2021. Twenty-three preoperative covariates (including root dimensions and valve characteristics) were used for propensity-score matching. Perioperative outcomes were analysed along with longer-term freedom from AV reoperation/reintervention and other major valve-related events. RESULTS: Throughout the study period, 297 patients underwent remodelling and 281 had reimplantation. Using propensity-score matching, 112 pairs were selected and further compared. We did not find a statistically significant difference in perioperative outcomes between the matched groups. Patients after remodelling had significantly higher reintervention risk than after reimplantation over the median follow-up of 6 years (P = 0.016). The remodelling technique (P = 0.02), need for decalcification (P = 0.03) and degree of immediate postoperative AV regurgitation (P < 0.001) were defined as independent risk factors for later AV reintervention. After exclusion of patients with worse than mild AV regurgitation immediately after repair, both techniques functioned comparably (P = 0.089). CONCLUSIONS: AV reimplantation was associated with better valve function in longer-term postoperatively than remodelling. If optimal immediate repair outcome was achieved, both techniques provided comparable AV function.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30201 - Cardiac and Cardiovascular systems

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

N - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z neverejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2024

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

European Journal Of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

ISSN

1010-7940

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

66

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

2

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

9

Strana od-do

—

Kód UT WoS článku

001284515800001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85199794600