Comparison of Early Clinical Results of Transcatheter versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Symptomatic High Risk Severe Aortic Stenosis Patients

´ëÇÑÈäºÎ¿Ü°úÇÐȸÁö 2013³â 46±Ç 5È£ p.346 ~ p.352

À¯¿ì½Ä(Yu Woo-Sik) - Yonsei University College of Medicine Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
À庴ö(Chang Byung-Chul) - Yonsei University College of Medicine Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
ÁÖÇöö(Joo Hyun-Chel) - Yonsei University College of Medicine Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
°í¿µ±¹(Ko Young-Guk) - Yonsei University College of Medicine Department of Cardiology
ÀÌ»è(Lee Sak) - Yonsei University College of Medicine Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Abstract

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been an alternative to conventional aortic valve re-placement (AVR) in old and high risk patients. The goal of this study is to compare the early outcomes of con-ventional AVR vs. TAVI in high risk severe AS patients.

Methods: From January 2008 to July 2012, 44 high risk severe aortic stenosis patients underwent conventional AVR, and 15 patients underwent TAVI. We compared echo-cardiographic data, periprocedural complication, and survival. The mean follow-up duration was 14.5¡¾10 months (AVR), and 6.8¡¾3.5 months (TAVI), respectively.

Results: AVR group was younger (78.2¡¾2.4 years vs. 82.2¡¾3.0 years, p£¼0.001) and had lower operative risk (Euroscore: 9.4¡¾2.7 vs. 11.0¡¾2.0, p=0.044) than TAVI group. There was no significant difference in early mortality (11.4% vs. 13.3%, p=0.839), and 1 year survival (87.4%¡¾5.3% vs. 83.1%¡¾1.1%, p=0.805). There was no significant difference in postoperative functional class. There was no sig-nificant difference in periprocedural complication except vascular complication (0% [AVR] vs. 13.3% [TAVI], p=0.014). TAVI group had more moderate and severe paravalvular leakage.

Conclusion: In this study, both groups had sim-ilar periprocedural morbidity, and mortality. However, TAVI group had more greater than moderate paravalvular leak-age, which can influence long-term outcome. Since more patients are treated with TAVI even in moderate risk, careful selection of the patients and appropriate guideline need to be established.

Å°¿öµå

Aortic valve stenosis, Aortic valve, surgery, Transcatheter aortic valve implantation
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸
ÇмúÁøÈïÀç´Ü(KCI) KoreaMed ´ëÇÑÀÇÇÐȸ ȸ¿ø 
ÁÖÁ¦ÄÚµå
ÁÖÁ¦¸í(Target field)
¿¬±¸´ë»ó(Population)
¿¬±¸Âü¿©(Sample size)
´ë»ó¼ºº°(Gender)
Áúº´Æ¯¼º(Condition Category)
¿¬±¸È¯°æ(Setting)
¿¬±¸¼³°è(Study Design)
¿¬±¸±â°£(Period)
ÁßÀç¹æ¹ý(Intervention Type)
ÁßÀç¸íĪ(Intervention Name)
Å°¿öµå(Keyword)
À¯È¿¼º°á°ú(Recomendation)
In this study, the TAVI group had a similar 1-year survival to the AVR group despite the fact that TAVI was performed in older and higher risk patients; AVR group was younger (78.2¡¾2.4 years vs. 82.2¡¾3.0 years, p£¼0.001) and had lower operative risk (Euroscore: 9.4¡¾2.7 vs. 11.0¡¾2.0, p=0.044) than TAVI group. There was no significant difference in early mortality (11.4% vs. 13.3%, p=0.839), and 1 year survival (87.4%¡¾5.3% vs. 83.1%¡¾1.1%, p=0.805).
¿¬±¸ºñÁö¿ø(Fund Source)
±Ù°Å¼öÁØÆò°¡(Evidence Hierarchy)
ÃâÆdz⵵(Year)
Âü¿©ÀúÀÚ¼ö(Authors)
´ëÇ¥ÀúÀÚ
KCDÄÚµå
ICD 03
°Ç°­º¸ÇèÄÚµå