Aortic valve surgery with stented versus stentless bioprosthesis in patients with active infective endocarditis

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Francisca Gonçalves Carvalho de Sousa
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