Balloon aortic valvuloplasty for severe aortic stenosis before urgent non-cardiac surgery.
Journal
EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology
ISSN: 1969-6213
Titre abrégé: EuroIntervention
Pays: France
ID NLM: 101251040
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Oct 2021
01 Oct 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
10
6
2021
medline:
6
10
2021
entrez:
9
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) has been proposed as a therapeutic option in patients suffering from severe aortic stenosis (SAS) who need urgent non-cardiac surgery (NCS). Whether this strategy is better than medical therapy in this very specific population is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the clinical benefit of an invasive strategy (IS) with preoperative BAV in patients with SAS requiring urgent NCS. From 2011 to 2019, a registry conducted in two centres included 133 patients with SAS undergoing urgent NCS, of whom 93 underwent preoperative BAV (IS) and 40 a conservative strategy (CS) without BAV. All analyses were adjusted for confounding using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) (10 clinical and anatomical variables). The primary outcome was MACE at one-month follow-up after NCS including mortality, heart failure, and other cardiovascular outcomes. In patients managed conservatively, occurrence of MACE was 20.0% (n=8) and death was 10.0% (n=4) at 1 month. In patients undergoing BAV, the occurrence of MACE was 20.4% (n=19) and death was 5.4% (n=5) at 1 month. Among patients undergoing conservative management, all events were observed after NCS while, in patients undergoing BAV, 12.9% (n=12) had events between BAV and NCS including 3 deaths, and 7.5% (n=7) had events after NCS including 2 deaths. In IPTW propensity analyses, the incidence of the primary outcome (20.4% vs 20.0%; OR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.38-2.29) and three-month survival (89.2% vs 90.0%; IPTW-adjusted HR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.31-2.60) were similar in both groups. Patients with SAS managed conservatively before urgent NCS are at high risk of events. A systematic invasive strategy using BAV does not provide a significant improvement in clinical outcome.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) has been proposed as a therapeutic option in patients suffering from severe aortic stenosis (SAS) who need urgent non-cardiac surgery (NCS). Whether this strategy is better than medical therapy in this very specific population is unknown.
AIMS
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to evaluate the clinical benefit of an invasive strategy (IS) with preoperative BAV in patients with SAS requiring urgent NCS.
METHODS
METHODS
From 2011 to 2019, a registry conducted in two centres included 133 patients with SAS undergoing urgent NCS, of whom 93 underwent preoperative BAV (IS) and 40 a conservative strategy (CS) without BAV. All analyses were adjusted for confounding using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) (10 clinical and anatomical variables).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The primary outcome was MACE at one-month follow-up after NCS including mortality, heart failure, and other cardiovascular outcomes. In patients managed conservatively, occurrence of MACE was 20.0% (n=8) and death was 10.0% (n=4) at 1 month. In patients undergoing BAV, the occurrence of MACE was 20.4% (n=19) and death was 5.4% (n=5) at 1 month. Among patients undergoing conservative management, all events were observed after NCS while, in patients undergoing BAV, 12.9% (n=12) had events between BAV and NCS including 3 deaths, and 7.5% (n=7) had events after NCS including 2 deaths. In IPTW propensity analyses, the incidence of the primary outcome (20.4% vs 20.0%; OR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.38-2.29) and three-month survival (89.2% vs 90.0%; IPTW-adjusted HR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.31-2.60) were similar in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with SAS managed conservatively before urgent NCS are at high risk of events. A systematic invasive strategy using BAV does not provide a significant improvement in clinical outcome.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34105511
pii: EIJ-D-20-01423
doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-20-01423
pmc: PMC9724970
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e680-e687Références
Int J Cardiol. 2017 Aug 1;240:145-153
pubmed: 28431770
Stat Med. 2009 Nov 10;28(25):3083-107
pubmed: 19757444
Gerontology. 2009;55(3):303-6
pubmed: 19287130
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009 Jan;22(1):1-23; quiz 101-2
pubmed: 19130998
Stat Med. 2014 Mar 15;33(6):1057-69
pubmed: 24123228
Am J Cardiol. 2010 Apr 15;105(8):1159-63
pubmed: 20381670
Circulation. 2014 Dec 9;130(24):e278-333
pubmed: 25085961
Eur Heart J. 2014 Sep 14;35(35):2383-431
pubmed: 25086026
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Sep 1;92(3):597-600
pubmed: 28303684
Eur Heart J. 2014 Sep 14;35(35):2372-81
pubmed: 24553722
Mayo Clin Proc. 1989 Jul;64(7):753-7
pubmed: 2475727
J Invasive Cardiol. 2018 Jun;30(6):E48-E49
pubmed: 29799428
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995 Nov 15;26(6):1522-8
pubmed: 7594080
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Jul 10;10(13):1375-1377
pubmed: 28683944
Anaesth Intensive Care. 2018 Mar;46(2):207-214
pubmed: 29519225
Circulation. 1991 Dec;84(6):2383-97
pubmed: 1959194
Injury. 2016 Feb;47(2):413-8
pubmed: 26556487
Eur Heart J. 2017 Sep 21;38(36):2739-2791
pubmed: 28886619
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1989 Apr;13(5):1039-41
pubmed: 2926053
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Dec 23;12(24):2449-2459
pubmed: 31857014
Am Heart J. 2011 Jun;161(6):1125-32
pubmed: 21641359
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 May;10(5):
pubmed: 28495894
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2018 Jun;19(4):444-447
pubmed: 29174823