Zespół kruchości u chorych poddawanych zabiegowi przezskórnej implantacji zastawki aortalnej
Streszczenie
Przezcewnikowa implantacja zastawki aortalnej (TAVI) jest coraz
powszechniejszą metodą leczenia pacjentów z ciężką stenozą
aortalną, ale identyfikacja osób, które odniosą korzyści z tej
metody, może być trudna. Kruchość odzwierciedla rezerwę
fizjologiczną i może być użytecznym markerem prognostycznym
w tej populacji. Autorzy niniejszej pracy przeprowadzili systematyczny
przegląd związku między zespołem kruchości a wynikami
zabiegów TAVI. Ocena kruchości w już i tak narażonej populacji
pacjentów po TAVI identyfikuje osoby o jeszcze większym
ryzyku niekorzystnych wyników. Korzystanie z obiektywnych
narzędzi oceny zespołu kruchości może zatem pomóc w decyzji
o kwalifikacji pacjenta do TAVI, wymaga to jednak dalszych
badań w dużych grupach pacjentów.
Słowa kluczowe: przezcewnikowa implantacja zastawki aortalnejzespół kruchościi
Referencje
- Huded CP, Huded JM, Friedman JL, et al. Frailty status and outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2016; 117(12): 1966–1971.
- Sathananthan J, Lauck S, Piazza N, et al. Frailty in older adults undergoing aortic valve replacement: The FRAILTY-AVR Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 70(6): 689–700.
- Schoenenberger AW, Moser A, Bertschi D, et al. Improvement of risk prediction after transcatheter aortic valve replacement by combining frailty with conventional risk scores. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 11(4): 395–403.
- Anand A, Harley C, Visvanathan A, et al. The relationship between preoperative frailty and outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2017; 3(2): 123–132.
- Shibata K, Yamamoto M, Kano S, et al. on the behalf of OCEAN-TAVI investigators. Importance of geriatric nutritional risk index assessment in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Am Heart J. 2018; 202: 68–75.
- Wiktorowicz A, Kleczynski P, Dziewierz A, et al. Impact of frailty on mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am Heart J. 2017; 185(7): 52–58.
- Rogers T, Alraies MC, Moussa Pacha H, et al. Clinical frailty as an outcome predictor after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2018; 121(7): 850–855.
- Bureau ML, Liuu E, Christiaens L, et al. MPI_AGE Project Investigators. Using a multidimensional prognostic index (MPI) based on comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) to predict mortality in elderly undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Int J Cardiol. 2017; 236: 381–386.
- Green P, Woglom AE, Genereux P, et al. The impact of frailty status on survival after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in older adults with severe aortic stenosis: a single-center experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 5(9): 974–981.
- Goudzwaard JA, de Ronde-Tillmans MJ, El Faquir N, et al. The Erasmus Frailty Score is associated with delirium and 1-year mortality after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in older patients. The TAVI Care & Cure program. Int J Cardiol. 2019; 276: 48–52.
- Saji M, Higuchi R, Tobaru T, et al. Impact of frailty markers for unplanned hospital readmission following transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Circ J. 2018; 82(8): 2191–2198.
- Martin GP, Sperrin M, Ludman PF, et al. Do frailty measures improve prediction of mortality and morbidity following transcatheter aortic valve implantation? An analysis of the UK TAVI registry. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(6): e022543.
- Vogt F, Wicklein S, Gosch M, et al. Functionality and outcome in older patients with severe aortic stenosis (FOOPAS): an interdisciplinary study concept for a prospective trial. Clin Interv Aging. 2018; 13: 185–193.
- Yamamoto M, Shimura T, Hayashida K, et al. OCEAN-TAVI Investigators. Impact of the clinical frailty scale on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2017; 135(21): 2013–2024.
- Drudi LM, Ades M, Asgar A, et al. Interaction between frailty and access site in older adults undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 11(21): 2185–2192.
- Assmann P, Kievit P, van der Wulp K, et al. Frailty is associated with delirium and mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Open Heart. 2016; 3(2): e000478.
- Mack M, Stoler R. Intervention for aortic stenosis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2017; 70(6): 701–703.
- Shimura T, Yamamoto M, Kano S, et al. OCEAN‐TAVI Investigators. Patients refusing transcatheter aortic valve replacement even once have poorer clinical outcomes. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018; 7(18): e009195.
- Pulignano G, Gulizia MM, Baldasseroni S, et al. ANMCO/SIC/SICI-GISE/SICCH Executive summary of consensus document on risk stratification in elderly patients with aortic stenosis before surgery or transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J Suppl. 2017; 19(Suppl D): D354–D369.
- Eichler S, Salzwedel A, Harnath A, et al. Nutrition and mobility predict all-cause mortality in patients 12 months after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Clin Res Cardiol. 2018; 107(4): 304–311.
- Fraccaro C, Testa L, Schiavo A, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients younger than 75 years: Guidelines-based patients selection and clinical outcome. Int J Cardiol. 2018; 272: 273–278.
- Li Z, Dawson E, Moodie J, et al. Frailty in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a protocol for a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019; 9(2): e024163.
- Martin GP, Sperrin M, Ludman PF, et al. Novel United Kingdom prognostic model for 30-day mortality following transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Heart. 2018; 104(13): 1109–1116.
- Ewe SH, Ajmone Marsan N, Pepi M, et al. Impact of left ventricular systolic function on clinical and echocardiographic outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe aortic stenosis. Am Heart J. 2010; 160(6): 1113–1120.
- Skaar E, Eide LS, Norekvål TM, et al. A novel geriatric assessment frailty score predicts 2-year mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2019; 5(2): 153–160.