Electrocardiographic Strain Pattern Is a Major Determinant of Rehospitalization for Heart Failure After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.
Aged, 80 and over
Aortic Valve Stenosis
/ diagnosis
Echocardiography
Electrocardiography
Follow-Up Studies
Heart Failure
/ epidemiology
Humans
Myocardial Contraction
/ physiology
Patient Readmission
/ trends
Postoperative Complications
/ epidemiology
Postoperative Period
Prognosis
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Severity of Illness Index
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
/ adverse effects
aortic stenosis
heart failure
transcutaneous aortic valve implantation
Journal
Journal of the American Heart Association
ISSN: 2047-9980
Titre abrégé: J Am Heart Assoc
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580524
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 02 2021
02 02 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
19
1
2021
medline:
14
10
2021
entrez:
18
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Background Electrocardiographic strain pattern (ESP) has recently been associated with increased adverse outcome in aortic stenosis and after surgical aortic valve replacement. Our study sought to determine the impact and incremental value of ESP pattern in predicting adverse outcome after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Methods and Results A total of 585 patients with severe aortic stenosis (mean age, 83±7 years; men, 39.8%) were enrolled for transcatheter aortic valve replacement from November 2012 to May 2018. ESP was defined as ≥1-mm concave down-sloping ST-segment depression and asymmetrical T-wave inversion in the lateral leads. The primary end points of the study were all-cause mortality, rehospitalization for heart failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke. A total of 178 (30.4%) patients were excluded because of left bundle-branch block (n=103) or right bundle-branch block (n=75). Among the 407 remaining patients, 106 had ESP (26.04%). At a median follow-up of 20.00 months (11.70-29.42 months), no impact of electric strain on overall and cardiac death could be established. By contrast, incidence of rehospitalization for heart failure was significantly higher (33/106 [31.1%] versus 33/301 [11%];
Identifiants
pubmed: 33459031
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.014481
pmc: PMC7955442
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e014481Références
J Am Heart Assoc. 2021 Feb 2;10(3):e014481
pubmed: 33459031
Int J Cardiol. 2020 May 15;307:130-135
pubmed: 32067832
Eur Heart J. 2017 Sep 21;38(36):2739-2791
pubmed: 28886619
J Am Heart Assoc. 2017 Nov 18;6(11):
pubmed: 29151037
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Apr 1;18(4):441-450
pubmed: 27334442
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Nov 6;60(19):1854-63
pubmed: 23062541
Am J Cardiol. 2018 Sep 15;122(6):1042-1046
pubmed: 30072131
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Nov;10(11):1320-1333
pubmed: 28017384
Eur Heart J. 2016 Feb 21;37(8):713-23
pubmed: 26491110
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Jan 1;19(1):39-46
pubmed: 28158582
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Oct 30;72(18):2139-2148
pubmed: 30360823
Cardiol Clin. 2001 Feb;19(1):155-63
pubmed: 11787809
Circulation. 2012 Jan 17;125(2):346-53
pubmed: 22147903
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Jun;11(6):e007451
pubmed: 29914867
Am Heart J. 2014 Aug;168(2):150-9.e1-7
pubmed: 25066553
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2008 Aug;31(8):1048-56
pubmed: 18684263
Am J Cardiol. 2017 Oct 1;120(7):1198-1202
pubmed: 28823482
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Feb 27;71(8):860-871
pubmed: 29471937
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019 Feb;12(2):283-296
pubmed: 30732723
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Jan;28(1):1-39.e14
pubmed: 25559473
Circulation. 2014 Oct 28;130(18):1607-16
pubmed: 25170097
Am J Cardiol. 2017 Oct 15;120(8):1359-1365
pubmed: 28823481