Search

Objective: We sought to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients with isolated severe aortic stenosis and an intermediate-to high-risk profile treated by means of conventional surgery (surgical aortic valve replacement), sutureless valve implantation, or transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a multicenter evaluation. Methods: Among 991 consecutive patients with isolated severe aortic stenosis and an intermediate- to high-risk profile (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score >4 and logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation I >10), a propensity score analysis was performed on the basis of the therapeutic strategy: surgical aortic valve replacement (n = 204), sutureless valve implantation (n = 204), and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (n = 204). Primary end points were 30-day mortality and overall survival at 24-month follow-up; the secondary end point was survival free from a composite end point of major adverse cardiac events (defined as cardiac-related mortality, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and major hemorrhagic events) and periprosthetic regurgitation greater than 2. Results: Thirty-day mortality was significantly higher in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement group (surgical aortic valve replacement = 3.4% vs sutureless = 5.8% vs transcatheter aortic valve replacement = 9.8%; P = .005). The incidence of postprocedural was 3.9% in asurgical aortic valve replacement vs 9.8% in sutureless vs 14.7% in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (P < .001) and peripheral vascular complications occurred in 0% of surgicalaortic valve replacement vs 0% of sutureless vs 9.8% transcatheter aortic valve replacement (P < .001). At 24-month follow-up, overall survival (surgical aortic valve replacement = 91.3% +/- 2.4% vs sutureless = 94.9% +/- 2.1% vs transcatheter aortic valve replacement = 79.5% +/- 4.3%; P < .001) and survival free from the composite end point of major adverse cardiovascular events and periprosthetic regurgitation were significantly better in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement and sutureless valve implantation than in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (surgical aortic valve replacement = 92.6% +/- 2.3% vs sutureless = 96% +/- 1.8% vs transcatheter aortic valve replacement = 77.1% +/- 4.2%; P < .001). Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified transcatheter aortic valve replacement as an independent risk factor for overall mortality hazard ratio (hazard ratio, 2.5; confidence interval, 1.1-4.2; P = .018). Conclusions: The use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with an intermediate-to high-risk profile was associated with a significantly higher incidence of peri-operative complications and decreased survival at shortand mid-term when compared with conventional surgery and sutureless valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: Few data exist on clinical/imaging characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients with type A acute dissection and mesenteric malperfusion. METHODS: Patients with type A acute dissection enrolled in the International Registry for Acute Dissection (IRAD) were evaluated to assess differences in clinical features, management, and in-hospital outcomes according to the presence/absence of mesenteric malperfusion. A mortality model was used to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality in patients with mesenteric malperfusion. RESULTS: Mesenteric malperfusion was detected in 68 (3.7%) of 1809 patients with type A acute dissection. Patients with mesenteric malperfusion were more likely to be older and to have coma, cerebrovascular accident, spinal cord ischemia, acute renal failure, limb ischemia, and any pulse deficit. They were less likely to undergo surgical/hybrid treatment (52.9% vs 87.9%) and more likely to receive only medical (30.9% vs 11.6%) or endovascular (16.2% vs 0.5%) management (P < .001). Overall in-hospital mortality was 63.2% and 23.8% in patients with and without mesenteric malperfusion, respectively (P < .001). In-hospital mortality of patients with mesenteric malperfusion receiving medical, endovascular, and surgical/hybrid therapy was 95.2%, 72.7%, and 41.7%, respectively (P < .001). At multivariate analysis, male gender (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; P = .002), age (OR, 1.1/y; P = .002), and renal failure (OR, 5.9; P = .020) were predictors of mortality whereas surgical/hybrid management (OR, 0.1; P = .005) was associated with better outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Type A acute aortic dissection complicated by mesenteric malperfusion is a rare but ominous complication carrying a high risk of hospital mortality. Surgical/hybrid therapy, although associated with 2-fold hospital mortality, appears to be associated with better long-term outcomes in the management of type A acute aortic dissection in this setting.