4.4 Article

Feasibility and Safety of Early Discharge After Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With the Edwards SAPIEN-XT Prosthesis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 115, 期 8, 页码 1116-1122

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.01.546

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is currently no consensus on the duration of hospitalization required after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We report the feasibility and safety of early discharge after TAVI with the Edwards SAPIEN-XT prosthesis. From 2009 to 2013, 337 patients underwent transfemoral TAVI with the Edwards SAPIEN-XT prosthesis using local anesthesia and were discharged home either early (<= 3 days, Early Discharge group, n = 121) or after 3 days (Late Discharge group, n = 216). The primary end point of the study combined death and rehospitalization from discharge to 30-day follow-up. Patients in the Early Discharge group were less symptomatic (New York Heart Association, class >= III: 64.5% vs 75.5%, p = 0.01) and had less renal failure (creatinine: 102.1 +/- 41.0 vs 113.3 +/- 58.9 mu mol/L, p = 0.04), atrial fibrillation (33.1% vs 46.3%, p = 0.02), and previous balloon aortic valvuloplasty (11.6% vs 23.1%, p = 0.01) and were more likely to have a pacemaker before TAVI (16.5% vs 8.3%, p = 0.02). Pre-existing pacemaker (p = 0.05) and the absence of acute kidney injury (p = 0.02) were independent predictors of an early discharge, whereas previous balloon aortic valvuloplasty (p = 0.03) and post-TAVI blood transfusions (p = 0.002) were independent predictors of late discharge. The primary end point occurred in 4 patients (3.3%) in the Early Discharge group and in 11 patients (5.1%) in the Late Discharge group (p = 0.58). In conclusion, the results of our study suggest that early discharge after transfemoral TAVI using the Edwards SAPIENX-XT prosthesis is feasible and safe in selected patients. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据