Zasady diagnostyki i kwalifikacji do przezcewnikowej implantacji zastawki aortalnej

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common acquired valvular heart disease. Due to latent course of the disease, the symptoms are most frequently observed in elderly patients. The treatment for AS is aortic valve replacement, but due to the high risk of the patients whom are often burdened with multiple coexisting conditions, it is often not implemented. An alternative and equally effective treatment for high-risk patients with severe, symptomatic AS is transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This technique involves transporting an biological aortic valve through the large arteries and into the aortic annulus. To qualify a patient for TAVI appropriate diagnosis needs to be performed.Stenoza aortalna (AS) jest najczęstszą nabytą zastawkową wadą serca. Ze względu na przewlekły przebieg objawy choroby najczęściej obserwuje się u pacjentów w zawansowanym wieku. Klasyczną metodą leczenia zwężenia zastawki aortalnej pozostaje zabieg operacyjny, który z powodu wysokiego ryzyka u osób starszych, często obciążonych wieloma chorobami towarzyszącymi, w wielu przypadkach nie jest wykonywany. Alternatywną i równie skuteczną metodą leczenia chorych z grupy wysokiego ryzyka z ciężka, objawową AS jest zabieg przezcewnikowej implantacji zastawki aortalnej. Technika ta polega na doprowadzeniu drogą wewnątrznaczyniową biologicznej zastawki j i jej implantacji w pierścieniu aortalnym. Aby zakwalifikować pacjenta do TAVI, niezbędna jest odpowiednia diagnostyka okołozabiegowa

Outcome prediction following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Multiple risk scores comparison

Background: The aim of the study was to compare 7 available risk models in the prediction of 30-day mortality following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Heart team decision supported by different risk score calculations is advisable to estimate the individual procedural risk before TAVI. Methods: One hundred and fifty-six consecutive patients (n = 156, 48% female, mean age 80.03 ± 8.18 years) who underwent TAVI between March 2010 and October 2014 were in­cluded in the study. Thirty-day follow-up was performed and available in each patient. Base­line risk was calculated according to EuroSCORE I, EuroSCORE II, STS, ACEF, Ambler’s, OBSERVANT and SURTAVI scores. Results: In receiver operating characteristics analysis, neither of the investigated scales was able to distinguish between patients with or without an endpoint with areas under the curve (AUC) not exceeding 0.6, as follows: EuroSCORE I, AUC 0.55; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.47–0.63, p = 0.59; EuroSCORE II, AUC 0.59; 95% CI 0.51–0.67, p = 0.23; STS, AUC 0.55; 95% CI 0.47–0.63, p = 0.52; ACEF, AUC 0.54; 95% CI 0.46–0.62, p = 0.69; Ambler’s, AUC 0.54; 95% CI 0.46–0.62, p = 0.70; OBSERVANT, AUC 0.597; 95% CI 0.52–0.67, p = 0.21; SURTAVI, AUC 0.535; 95% CI 0.45–0.62, p = 0.65. SURTAVI model was calibrated best in high-risk patients showing coherence between expected and observed mortality (10.8% vs. 9.4%, p = 0.982). ACEF demonstrated best classification accuracy (17.5% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.053, observed mortality in high vs. non-high-risk cohort, respectively). Conclusions: None of the investigated risk scales proved to be optimal in predicting 30-day mortality in unselected, real-life population with aortic stenosis referred to TAVI. This data supports primary role of heart team in decision process of selecting patients for TAVI