We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Patients with severe aortic stenosis and reduced ejection fraction: earlier recovery of left ventricular systolic function after transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with surgical valve replacement.
Echocardiography 2013 September
BACKGROUND: Only 50% of patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and low ejection fraction (EF) improve their contractility after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Long-term prognosis of these patients is strongly correlated to EF recovery after the surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative left ventricular function recovery in patients with severe AS and reduced EF after AVR and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).
METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-one patients undergoing AVR for severe AS (<1 cm²) and reduced EF (<45%) were echocardiographically compared with 31 patients treated with TAVI by conventional and two-dimensional (2D) strain method. TAVI patients were older (83 ± 6 vs. 74 ± 13 years, P < 0.001), had more comorbidities (Euroscore 26 ± 15% vs. 16 ± 12%, P < 0.001) and no differences in ischemic heart disease (16.1% vs. 9.5%, P = 0.39). EF was similar in both groups at baseline. Aortic valve area significantly increased (P = 0.01) while pressure gradient decreased (P = 0.009) after both procedures but TAVI was associated with a better EF recovery compared with AVR at day 7. Regional function assessed by radial 2D strain increased in TAVI group but was transiently deteriorated in AVR patients (P < 0.05). Longitudinal as well as circumferential 2D strain progressively increased at follow-up in both groups (P < 0.05). EF was similar in both groups at 3-month follow-up.
CONCLUSION: In patients with severe AS and reduced EF, TAVI is associated with faster and better recovery of LV function compared with AVR.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-one patients undergoing AVR for severe AS (<1 cm²) and reduced EF (<45%) were echocardiographically compared with 31 patients treated with TAVI by conventional and two-dimensional (2D) strain method. TAVI patients were older (83 ± 6 vs. 74 ± 13 years, P < 0.001), had more comorbidities (Euroscore 26 ± 15% vs. 16 ± 12%, P < 0.001) and no differences in ischemic heart disease (16.1% vs. 9.5%, P = 0.39). EF was similar in both groups at baseline. Aortic valve area significantly increased (P = 0.01) while pressure gradient decreased (P = 0.009) after both procedures but TAVI was associated with a better EF recovery compared with AVR at day 7. Regional function assessed by radial 2D strain increased in TAVI group but was transiently deteriorated in AVR patients (P < 0.05). Longitudinal as well as circumferential 2D strain progressively increased at follow-up in both groups (P < 0.05). EF was similar in both groups at 3-month follow-up.
CONCLUSION: In patients with severe AS and reduced EF, TAVI is associated with faster and better recovery of LV function compared with AVR.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app