Aortic valve surgery with stented versus stentless bioprosthesis in patients with active infective endocarditis
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2023 |
Tipo de documento: | Dissertação |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | https://hdl.handle.net/10216/150583 |
Resumo: | Objectives: compare clinical and hemodynamic outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a stented (Trifecta-TF) versus a stentless bioprosthesis (Freedom Solo or Solo Smart-FS) in patients with active infective endocarditis (IE). Methods: single-center, retrospective, observational and comparative study including active IE patients who underwent AVR with TF or FS between June 2009 and December 2019. Survival and re-intervention were checked in December 2022. Chi-square or Fisher and Mann-Whitney tests were used for groups comparison and Kaplan-Meier method for time-to-event outcomes. Results: Sixty-eight patients with active IE (21 FS and 47 TF) were included. The median age of FS patients was 68 vs. 69 years in TF (p=0.253). There were 66.7% male patients in the FS vs. 72.3% TF (p=0.508). Median EuroSCORE II was 9.4 (1.0 to 50.8) in FS vs. 16.7 (1.7 to 91.0) in TF (p=0.353). Hospital mortality occurred in 9.5% FS and 25.5% TF (p=0.20). After excluding these patients, the 1-, 5- and 8-year cumulative survival rates for FS vs. TF were 89.5% vs. 88.6%, 84.2% vs. 77.1%, 60.5% vs. 59.1%, respectively (Log-rank p=0.92). There was 1 reoperation in FS at 6 years of follow-up due to structural valve deterioration; and 6 in TF (5 due to endocarditis at 1-, 3-, 5- (n=2) and 11-years of follow-up and 1 due to nonstructural valve deterioration 6-years after AVR:10-years freedom-from-reoperation of 90.9% vs. 80.8%, respectively (Log-rank, p=0.087). Conclusions: TF bioprosthesis was implanted in higher risk patients. Long-term overall survival was similar in stented and stentless aortic bioprosthesis, but FS patients presented higher freedom from prosthesis related reoperation. |
id |
RCAP_de461063f49f44201f0b42197ad71408 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio-aberto.up.pt:10216/150583 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Aortic valve surgery with stented versus stentless bioprosthesis in patients with active infective endocarditisCiências médicas e da saúdeMedical and Health sciencesObjectives: compare clinical and hemodynamic outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a stented (Trifecta-TF) versus a stentless bioprosthesis (Freedom Solo or Solo Smart-FS) in patients with active infective endocarditis (IE). Methods: single-center, retrospective, observational and comparative study including active IE patients who underwent AVR with TF or FS between June 2009 and December 2019. Survival and re-intervention were checked in December 2022. Chi-square or Fisher and Mann-Whitney tests were used for groups comparison and Kaplan-Meier method for time-to-event outcomes. Results: Sixty-eight patients with active IE (21 FS and 47 TF) were included. The median age of FS patients was 68 vs. 69 years in TF (p=0.253). There were 66.7% male patients in the FS vs. 72.3% TF (p=0.508). Median EuroSCORE II was 9.4 (1.0 to 50.8) in FS vs. 16.7 (1.7 to 91.0) in TF (p=0.353). Hospital mortality occurred in 9.5% FS and 25.5% TF (p=0.20). After excluding these patients, the 1-, 5- and 8-year cumulative survival rates for FS vs. TF were 89.5% vs. 88.6%, 84.2% vs. 77.1%, 60.5% vs. 59.1%, respectively (Log-rank p=0.92). There was 1 reoperation in FS at 6 years of follow-up due to structural valve deterioration; and 6 in TF (5 due to endocarditis at 1-, 3-, 5- (n=2) and 11-years of follow-up and 1 due to nonstructural valve deterioration 6-years after AVR:10-years freedom-from-reoperation of 90.9% vs. 80.8%, respectively (Log-rank, p=0.087). Conclusions: TF bioprosthesis was implanted in higher risk patients. Long-term overall survival was similar in stented and stentless aortic bioprosthesis, but FS patients presented higher freedom from prosthesis related reoperation.2023-06-232023-06-23T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesisapplication/pdfhttps://hdl.handle.net/10216/150583TID:203521340porFrancisca Gonçalves Carvalho de Sousainfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2024-02-16T01:25:01Zoai:repositorio-aberto.up.pt:10216/150583Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-20T00:39:39.554576Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Aortic valve surgery with stented versus stentless bioprosthesis in patients with active infective endocarditis |
title |
Aortic valve surgery with stented versus stentless bioprosthesis in patients with active infective endocarditis |
spellingShingle |
Aortic valve surgery with stented versus stentless bioprosthesis in patients with active infective endocarditis Francisca Gonçalves Carvalho de Sousa Ciências médicas e da saúde Medical and Health sciences |
title_short |
Aortic valve surgery with stented versus stentless bioprosthesis in patients with active infective endocarditis |
title_full |
Aortic valve surgery with stented versus stentless bioprosthesis in patients with active infective endocarditis |
title_fullStr |
Aortic valve surgery with stented versus stentless bioprosthesis in patients with active infective endocarditis |
title_full_unstemmed |
Aortic valve surgery with stented versus stentless bioprosthesis in patients with active infective endocarditis |
title_sort |
Aortic valve surgery with stented versus stentless bioprosthesis in patients with active infective endocarditis |
author |
Francisca Gonçalves Carvalho de Sousa |
author_facet |
Francisca Gonçalves Carvalho de Sousa |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Francisca Gonçalves Carvalho de Sousa |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Ciências médicas e da saúde Medical and Health sciences |
topic |
Ciências médicas e da saúde Medical and Health sciences |
description |
Objectives: compare clinical and hemodynamic outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a stented (Trifecta-TF) versus a stentless bioprosthesis (Freedom Solo or Solo Smart-FS) in patients with active infective endocarditis (IE). Methods: single-center, retrospective, observational and comparative study including active IE patients who underwent AVR with TF or FS between June 2009 and December 2019. Survival and re-intervention were checked in December 2022. Chi-square or Fisher and Mann-Whitney tests were used for groups comparison and Kaplan-Meier method for time-to-event outcomes. Results: Sixty-eight patients with active IE (21 FS and 47 TF) were included. The median age of FS patients was 68 vs. 69 years in TF (p=0.253). There were 66.7% male patients in the FS vs. 72.3% TF (p=0.508). Median EuroSCORE II was 9.4 (1.0 to 50.8) in FS vs. 16.7 (1.7 to 91.0) in TF (p=0.353). Hospital mortality occurred in 9.5% FS and 25.5% TF (p=0.20). After excluding these patients, the 1-, 5- and 8-year cumulative survival rates for FS vs. TF were 89.5% vs. 88.6%, 84.2% vs. 77.1%, 60.5% vs. 59.1%, respectively (Log-rank p=0.92). There was 1 reoperation in FS at 6 years of follow-up due to structural valve deterioration; and 6 in TF (5 due to endocarditis at 1-, 3-, 5- (n=2) and 11-years of follow-up and 1 due to nonstructural valve deterioration 6-years after AVR:10-years freedom-from-reoperation of 90.9% vs. 80.8%, respectively (Log-rank, p=0.087). Conclusions: TF bioprosthesis was implanted in higher risk patients. Long-term overall survival was similar in stented and stentless aortic bioprosthesis, but FS patients presented higher freedom from prosthesis related reoperation. |
publishDate |
2023 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2023-06-23 2023-06-23T00:00:00Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
format |
masterThesis |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://hdl.handle.net/10216/150583 TID:203521340 |
url |
https://hdl.handle.net/10216/150583 |
identifier_str_mv |
TID:203521340 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799136302487044097 |