Premium
Balloon aortic valvuloplasty for severe aortic stenosis as a bridge to transcatheter/surgical aortic valve replacement
Author(s) -
BenDor Itsik,
Maluenda Gabriel,
Dvir Danny,
Barbash Israel M.,
Okubagzi Petros,
Torguson Rebecca,
Lindsay Joseph,
Satler Lowell F.,
Pichard Augusto D.,
Waksman Ron
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
catheterization and cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.988
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1522-726X
pISSN - 1522-1946
DOI - 10.1002/ccd.24682
Subject(s) - medicine , aortic valvuloplasty , cardiology , stenosis , valve replacement , aortic valve replacement , balloon , aortic valve , cohort , surgery , aortic valve stenosis
Objectives : This study aimed to determine success‐ and complication rates after balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) and the outcome of BAV as a standalone therapy versus BAV as a bridge to transcatheter/surgical aortic valve replacement (T/SAVR). Background : The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has led to a revival in BAV as treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis. Methods : A cohort of 472 patients underwent 538 BAV procedures. The cohort was divided into two groups: BAV alone 387 (81.9%) and BAV as a bridge 85 (18.1%) to ( n = 65, TAVR; n = 20, surgery). Clinical, hemodynamic, and follow‐up mortality data were collected. Results : There was no significant difference between the two groups in mean age (81.7 ± 8.3 vs. 83.2 ± 10.9 years, P = 0.18), society of thoracic surgeons score (13.1 ± 6.2 and 12.4 ± 6.4, P = 0.4), logistic EuroSCORE (45.4 ± 22.3 vs. 46.9 ± 21.8, P = 0.43), and other comorbidities. The mean increase in aortic valve area was 0.39 ± 0.25 in the BAV alone group and 0.42 ± 0.26 in the BAV as a bridge group, P = 0.33. The decrease in mean gradient was 24.1 ± 13.1 in the BAV alone group vs. 27.1 ± 13.8 in the BAV as a bridge group, P = 0.06. During a median follow up of 183 days [54–409], the mortality rate was 55.2% ( n = 214) in the BAV alone group vs. 22.3% ( n = 19) in the BAV as a bridge group during a median follow‐up of 378 days [177–690], P < 0.001. Conclusion : In high‐risk patients with aortic stenosis and temporary contraindications to SAVR/TAVR, BAV may be used as a bridge to intervention with good mid‐term outcomes. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.