P5464Risk of major AV conduction disturbances after TAVR attributable to aortic calcium burden
Rattachement africain : es, it. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background: After transaortic valve replacement (TAVR), permanent LBBB or advanced/complete AV block are major concerns. Trends in epidemiology, procedure and morpho-anatomic landmarks in severe AV conduction disorders (AVCD) after TAVR are scarce. Methods: Cross sectional, retrospective and case-controls subanalysis of a cohort of patients (P) with severe aortic stenosis and submitted to Heart Team driven TAVR program in a single tertiary care center. Temporal cut-point accounts from 2009–2012 (P1) and 2013–2017 (P2). Main epidemiological, procedural variables and echocardiographic morpho-anatomic landmarks, including aortic calcium burden using a validated echo-score (from 3 to 11) were analyzed. Results: A transfemoral TAVR was performed in 338 consecutive P. There were not differences in success rate in P1 and P2 (96% vs. 94%; p=NS), but a trend for higher severe AVCD (17% vs. 25%; p=0.08). Concerning outcomes, severe AVCD related with self-expanding TAVR decreased over time (50% vs. 31%; p<0,01) and also post-TAVR “ballooning” (75% vs. 25%; p<0.05) and observed TAVR oversizing (Table). Aortic calcium burden was superior both in P1 and P2 in severe AVCD patients (p<0.01 and p<0.0001). In addition, aortic valve calcium burden increased up to 16,6% from P1 to P2 (p=0.04) parallel to the higher incidence of AVCD over time.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- P5464Risk of major AV conduction disturbances after TAVR attributable to aortic calcium burden
- Date Crossref
- 01/08/2018
- Éditeur
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.