Mortality prediction after transcatheter treatment of failed bioprosthetic aortic valves utilizing various international scoring systems
Digital Document
Collection(s) |
Collection(s)
|
---|---|
Content type |
Content type
|
Resource Type |
Resource Type
|
Genre |
Genre
|
Language |
Language
|
Peer Review Status |
Peer Review Status
Peer Reviewed
|
Persons |
Author (aut): Rana, Ruhina
Author (aut): Aziz, Mina
Author (aut): Simonato, Matheus
Author (aut): Webb, John G.
Author (aut): Abdel-Wahab, Mohamed
Author (aut): McElhinney, Doff
Author (aut): Duncan, Alison
Author (aut): Tchetche, Didier
Author (aut): Barbanti, Marco
Author (aut): Petronio, Anna S.
Author (aut): Maisano, Francesco
Author (aut): Ribeiro, Vasco G.
Author (aut): Gaia, Diego F.
Author (aut): Kocka, Viktor
Author (aut): Mathur, Moses
Author (aut): Wijeysundera, Harindra
Author (aut): Hellig, Farrel
Author (aut): Nisse, Henrik
Author (aut): Bekeredjian, Raffi
Author (aut): Rihal, Charanjit
Author (aut): Duffy, Stephen J.
Author (aut): Dvir, Danny
|
---|
Abstract |
Abstract
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) is commonly used to deploy new bioprosthetic valves inside degenerated surgically implanted aortic valves in high risk patients. The three scoring systems used to assess risk of postprocedural mortality are: Logistic EuroSCORE (LES), EuroSCORE II (ES II), and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). The purpose of this study is to analyze the accuracy of LES, ES II, and STS in estimating all‐cause mortality after transcatheter aortic valve‐in‐valve (ViV) implantations, which was not assessed before. Using the Valve‐in‐Valve International Data (VIVID) registry, a total of 1,550 patients from 110 centers were included. The study compared the observed 30‐day overall mortality vs. the respective predicted mortalities calculated by risk scores. The accuracy of prediction models was assessed based on calibration and discrimination.
Observed mortality at 30 days was 5.3%, while average expected mortalities by LES, ES II and STS were 29.49 (± 17.2), 14.59 (± 8.6), and 9.61 (± 8.51), respectively. All three risk scores overestimated 30‐day mortality with ratios of 0.176 (95% CI 0.138–0.214), 0.342 (95% CI 0.264–0.419), and 0.536 (95% CI 0.421–0.651), respectively. 30‐day mortality ROC curves demonstrated that ES II had the largest AUC at 0.722, followed by STS at 0.704, and LES at 0.698. All three scores overestimated mortality at 30 days with ES II showing the highest predictability compared to LES and STS; and therefore, should be recommended for ViV procedures. There is a need for a dedicated scoring system for patients undergoing ViV interventions. |
---|
Publication Title |
Publication Title
|
---|---|
Publication Number |
Publication Number
Volume 92, Issue 6
|
DOI |
DOI
10.1002/ccd.27714
|
---|---|
ISSN |
ISSN
1522-1946
|
PubMed Central Reference Number |
PubMed Central Reference Number
30079597
|
URL | |
---|---|
Use and Reproduction |
Use and Reproduction
© Copyright 2018. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions.
|
Rights Statement |
Rights Statement
|
Keywords |
Keywords
aortic valve disease
surgery—aortic
valve-in-valve
trans- catheter valve implantation
structural heart disease intervention
surgery—valvular
|
---|---|
Subject Topic |