Room-temperature operation of 1.27-µm-wavelength InGaAsP/InP DH lasers fabricated on InP

T. Yamamoto,K. Sakai,S. Akiba,Y. Suematsu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/JQE.1977.1069434

IF: 2.5

1977-09-01

IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Selection for transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement and mid-term survival: results of the AUTHEARTVISIT study

Johann Auer,Pavla Krotka,Berthold Reichardt,Denise Traxler,Ralph Wendt,Michael Mildner,Hendrik Jan Ankersmit,Alexandra Graf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezae214

IF: 4.534

2024-06-14

European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

Abstract:Abstract OBJECTIVES Limited data are available from randomized trials comparing outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgery in patients with different risks and with follow-up of at least 4 years or longer. In this large, population-based cohort study, long-term mortality and morbidity were investigated in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe aortic stenosis using a surgically implanted bioprosthesis (surgical/biological aortic valve replacement; sB-AVR) or TAVR. METHODS Individual data from the Austrian Insurance Funds from 2010 through 2020 were analysed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, assessed in the overall and propensity score-matched populations. Secondary outcomes included reoperation and cardiovascular events. RESULTS From January 2010 through December 2020, a total of 18 882 patients underwent sB-AVR (n = 11 749; 62.2%) or TAVR (n = 7133; 37.8%); median follow-up was 5.8 (95% CI 5.7–5.9) years (maximum 12.3 years). The risk of all-cause mortality was higher with TAVR compared with sB-AVR: hazard ratio 1.552, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.469–1.640, P < 0.001; propensity score-matched hazard ratio 1.510, 1.403–1.625, P < 0.001. Estimated median survival was 8.8 years (95% CI 8.6–9.1) with sB-AVR versus 5 years (4.9–5.2) with TAVR. Estimated 5-year survival probability was 0.664 (0.664–0.686) with sB-AVR versus 0.409 (0.378–0.444) with TAVR overall, and 0.690 (0.674–0.707) and 0.560 (0.540–0.582), respectively, with propensity score matching. Separate subgroup analyses for patients aged 65–75 years and >75 years indicated a significant survival benefit in patients selected for sB-AVR in both groups. Other predictors of mortality were age, sex, previous heart failure, diabetes and chronic kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS In this retrospective national population-based study, selection for TAVR was significantly associated with higher all-cause mortality compared with sB-AVR in patients ≥65 years with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis in the >2-year follow-up.

surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems,respiratory system
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid Vs. Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis among Patients at Low Surgical Risk in China: from the Multicenter National NTCVR Database

Nanchao Hong,Wenzhi Pan,Xianbao Liu,Daxin Zhou,Jianan Wang,Junbo Ge

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010387

IF: 3.9

2023-01-01

Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract:Background: This study aims to compare the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with self-expandable valves for bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) vs. tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis patients who are at low surgical risk. Methods: Participants were enrolled from 36 centers in China between January 2017 and December 2021. The primary endpoint event was all-cause mortality and all stroke at 30 days. Results: Among 389 patients at low surgical risk that underwent TAVR, 229 patients were BAV stenosis (mean age, 72.9 years; 65.1% men). There was no significant difference in the rate of all-cause death between two populations at 30 days. However, the rate of all stroke was significantly higher in the BAV group at 30 days (3.3% vs. 0%; odds ratio (OR), 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.94 to 0.99); p = 0.044). By multivariate logistic regression analysis, trans-carotid access was associated with a higher all stroke rate at 30 days (OR, 29.20 (95% CI, 3.97 to 215.1); p = 0.001). Conclusions: In this national registry-based study, patients treated for BAV vs. TAV stenosis had no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days, but trans-carotid access was associated with a higher all stroke rate after TAVR at 30 days.
P1795Impact of severe aortic stenosis treatment strategy in low-risk patients: a propensity matched analysis of surgical aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation

C Brizido,M Madeira,J Brito,R C Teles,M Goncalves,A F Oliveira,T Nolasco,J Carmo,J P Neves,M S Almeida,M Mendes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz748.0547

IF: 39.3

2019-10-01

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Abstract Introduction Recent studies suggest that transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) benefits might extend to lower risk patients. Our goal was to compare the impact of treatment strategy in mortality and peri-procedural complications in a low-risk severe aortic stenosis population. Methods Single-center retrospective study which screened patients undergoing intervention from June/2009 to July/2016 (682 isolated aortic valve replacement patients) and from June/2009 to July/2017 (400 TAVI patients). Low-risk was defined as EuroScore II <4% for single non-CABG procedure. After excluding patients with EuroScore II ≥4%, previous cardiac surgery and/or undergoing pre-treatment PCI, 544 AVR and 119 TAVI patients were included. TAVI patients were propensity score paired in a 1:1 ratio with a group of AVR patients, matched by age, NYHA class, diabetes mellitus, COPD, atrial fibrillation, creatinine clearance and LVEF <50% (mean standardized difference <10% for matching variables). All patients completed at least 1 year of follow-up. Outcomes were adjudicated according to VARC2 criteria. Results A total of 158 patients (79 AVR and 79 TAVI) were matched (mean age 79±6 years, 79 men). Median EuroScore II was 2.3% (IQR 1.6–3.0%), 46% were in NYHA class ≥3 and 91% had preserved ejection fraction. Main comorbidities were hypertension (n=105, 67%), diabetes mellitus (n=48, 30%), COPD (n=35, 22%) and coronary artery disease (n=30, 19%). Most patients had at least mild renal function impairment and median creatinine clearance was 58 ml/min (IQR 43–62 ml/min). The 30-day mortality was 2.5% (n=2 in each group) and there were no differences in in-hospital complications. During a median follow-up of 3.8 years (IQR 2.1–6.1), 67 deaths occurred (39 on the AVR group and 28 on the TAVI group), and treatment strategy did not influence all-cause mortality (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.60–1.60, log rank p=0.92) - figure 1. By multivariate analysis, need for dialysis during hospitalization remained the only independent predictor of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 6.40, 95% CI 1.57–28.14, p=0.01). Figure 1 Conclusion In this low-risk matched population, treatment strategy did not influence mortality neither complications. Older age, higher NYHA class and renal impairment were the main contributors to the predicted surgical risk. These results suggest that both options are safe for low-risk patients, even though Heart Team remains essential to contemplate other variables that might alter patient management.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
30-Day Outcomes after Surgical or Transapical Aortic Valve Replacement in Symptomatic Aortic Regurgitation

Minjian Kong,Ze Hong,Xianbao Liu,Xian Zhu,Jianan Wang,Aiqiang Dong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd9070224

2022-01-01

Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease

Abstract:Background: We aimed to analyze the short-term clinical outcomes of transapical aortic valve replacement (TA-TAVR) compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in symptomatic aortic regurgitation (AR) patients to draw preliminary conclusions about the advantages and disadvantages of TA-TAVR compared with SAVR and to provide evidence for future use of TA-TAVR in AR patients. Method: From September 2016 to September 2021, 69 patients undergoing TA-TAVR with J-valve implantation and 42 patients undergoing SAVR at the Second Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine were analyzed for clinical data and 30-day follow-up outcomes to analyze and compare the differences in clinical endpoints between the two procedures. Results: At 30-day follow-up, there were no significant differences in mortality or neurological events between the two groups before and after the PSM. In secondary endpoints there were significant differences between the pre-match TAVR and SAVR groups, such as the incidence of paravalvular leaks (33.8% vs. 4.8%, p < 0.05), which also remained after the PSM (37.5% vs. 0, p < 0.05). In addition, the incidence of major bleeding was 7.4% in the TAVR group and 26.2% in the SAVR group before matching (p < 0.05). After matching, the statistical difference still remained. In longitudinal comparison, significant improvements in postoperative cardiac ultrasound indices and NYHA classification occurred in both groups. Conclusion: The TA-TAVR approach is safe and reliable, with similar clinical efficacy to SAVR, and has advantages in bleeding rate and speed of recovery.
Self-expanding Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients: 5-Year Outcomes of the SURTAVI Randomized Clinical Trial

Nicolas M Van Mieghem,G Michael Deeb,Lars Søndergaard,Eberhard Grube,Stephan Windecker,Hemal Gada,Mubashir Mumtaz,Peter S Olsen,John C Heiser,William Merhi,Neal S Kleiman,Stanley J Chetcuti,Thomas G Gleason,Joon Sup Lee,Wen Cheng,Raj R Makkar,Juan Crestanello,Barry George,Isaac George,Susheel Kodali,Steven J Yakubov,Patrick W Serruys,Rüdiger Lange,Nicolo Piazza,Mathew R Williams,Jae K Oh,David H Adams,Shuzhen Li,Michael J Reardon,SURTAVI Trial Investigators

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2022.2695

2022-10-01

Abstract:Importance: In patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding supra-annular valve was noninferior to surgery for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Comparisons of longer-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in these patients are limited. Objective: To report prespecified secondary 5-year outcomes from the Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement (SURTAVI) randomized clinical trial. Design, setting, and participants: SURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Randomization was stratified by investigational site and need for revascularization determined by the local heart teams. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate risk of 30-day surgical mortality were enrolled at 87 centers from June 19, 2012, to June 30, 2016, in Europe and North America. Analysis took place between August and October 2021. Intervention: Patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis. Main outcomes and measures: The prespecified secondary end points of death or disabling stroke and other adverse events and hemodynamic findings at 5 years. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all serious adverse events and an independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms at 5 years. Results: A total of 1660 individuals underwent an attempted TAVR (n = 864) or surgical (n = 796) procedure. The mean (SD) age was 79.8 (6.2) years, 724 (43.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 4.5% (1.6%). At 5 years, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR, 31.3% vs surgery, 30.8%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.22]; P = .85). Transprosthetic gradients remained lower (mean [SD], 8.6 [5.5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P < .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm2 vs 1.8 [0.6] cm2; P < .001) with TAVR vs surgery. More patients had moderate/severe paravalvular leak with TAVR than surgery (11 [3.0%] vs 2 [0.7%]; risk difference, 2.37% [95% CI, 0.17%- 4.85%]; P = .05). New pacemaker implantation rates were higher for TAVR than surgery at 5 years (289 [39.1%] vs 94 [15.1%]; hazard ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.61-4.17]; log-rank P < .001), as were valve reintervention rates (27 [3.5%] vs 11 [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.45]; log-rank P = .02), although between 2 and 5 years only 6 patients who underwent TAVR and 7 who underwent surgery required a reintervention. Conclusions and relevance: Among intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, major clinical outcomes at 5 years were similar for TAVR and surgery. TAVR was associated with superior hemodynamic valve performance but also with more paravalvular leak and valve reinterventions.
[Physical activity and bone mineral content in postmenopausal women].

P. Eiken

1995-09-11

Abstract:A review of 18 cross-sectional and 29 prospective studies provides evidence that physical exercise causes an increase in bone mineral content or at least preserves the bone mass of both younger and older postmenopausal women. This is true both for women with normal and with reduced bone mineral content. Regular weight-bearing exercises seem to be especially effective. There are no randomized studies which have been able to prove that physical exercise reduces the incidence and prevalence of low-energy fractures, but this reduction seems probable.
Demographics and outcomes of patients younger than 75 years undergoing aortic valve interventions in Rotterdam

Van Mieghem, Nicolas M.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12471-024-01888-2

2024-08-23

Netherlands Heart Journal

Abstract:Background Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is considered a safe and effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for elderly patients across the operative risk spectrum. In the Netherlands, TAVI is reimbursed only for patients with a high operative risk. Despite this, one fifth of TAVI patients are < 75 years of age. We aim to compare patient characteristics and outcomes of TAVI and SAVR patients < 75 years. Methods This study included all patients < 75 years without active endocarditis undergoing TAVI or SAVR for severe aortic stenosis, mixed aortic valve disease or degenerated aortic bioprosthesis between 2015 and 2020 at the Erasmus University Medical Centre. Dutch authority guidelines were used to classify operative risk. Results TAVI was performed in 292 patients, SAVR in 386 patients. Based on the Dutch risk algorithm, 59.6% of TAVI patients and 19.4% of SAVR patients were at high operative risk. There was no difference in 30-day all-cause mortality between TAVI and SAVR (2.4% vs 0.8%, p = 0.083). One-year and 5‐year mortality was higher after TAVI than after SAVR (1-year: 12.5% vs 4.3%, p < 0.001; 5‐year: 36.8% vs 12.0%, p < 0.001). Within risk categories we found no difference between treatment strategies. Independent predictors of mortality were cardiovascular comorbidities (left ventricular ejection fraction < 30%, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary hypertension) and the presence of malignancies, liver cirrhosis or immunomodulatory drug use. Conclusion At the Erasmus University Medical Centre, in patients < 75 years, TAVI is selected for higher-risk phenotypes and overall has higher long-term mortality than SAVR. We found no evidence for worse outcome within risk categories.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Contemporary outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in patients referred for a transcatheter approach

Stephane Leung Wai Sang,Caleb Weissman,Jessica Parker,Tomasz Timek,Charles Willekes,Justin Fanning

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.132004

IF: 4.039

2024-04-01

International Journal of Cardiology

Abstract:Objectives The purpose of this study is to examine which patients referred to our structural valve clinic for potential transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are receiving surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) whether due to unsuitable anatomy for TAVR versus other reasons. Methods Individuals referred for TAVR from January 2019 to March 2022, who ultimately underwent SAVR were examined, retrospectively. Patients were divided into 2 surgical groups: TAVR was technically unsuitable (SAVR-TU) and those in which TAVR was technically feasible (SAVR-TF). Results 215 patients referred for TAVR underwent SAVR with 61 (28.4%) patients in the SAVR-TU group and 154 (71.6%) in the SAVR-TF group. The SAVR-TU group were more commonly female (52.5% vs 23.4%, p < 0.0001), had a higher incidence of stroke at baseline (9.8% vs 2.0%, p = 0.017) were frailer (5-m gait 5.2 s vs 4.7 s, p = 0.0035), and had a higher Society of Thoracic Surgery risk score (2.2 vs 1.7, p = 0.04). In the SAVR-TU group, unsuitability for TAVR was due to inadequate aortic root anatomy (86.9%), and poor peripheral access (6.6%). In the SAVR-TF group, the most common reasons for SAVR referral were concomitant coronary artery disease (42.9%), bicuspid aortic valve disease (16.9%), and concomitant aortic aneurysm (10.4%). Overall, in-hospital mortality was 1.4% with no difference between both groups. One-year survival was 96.7%. Conclusion Despite a higher trend of aortic stenosis being treated with TAVR, higher risk patients unsuitable for TAVR can have SAVR with excellent outcomes. Moreover, patients with AS and concomitant other pathology should be evaluated for cardiac surgery.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Comparative Outcomes of Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-analysis and Parametric Extrapolation of Clinical Trials

Danial Ahmad,Alex Dawes,Moses Im,Alec Vishnevsky,Nicholas J Ruggiero,Konstadinos A Plestis,Howard T Massey,Rohinton J Morris,John W Entwistle,Vakhtang Tchantchaleishvili

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2024.06.044

2024-07-26

Abstract:Introduction: We aimed to pool randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and extrapolate pooled time-to-event data to compare long-term outcomes. Methods: An electronic database search was performed for RCTs comparing SAVR with TAVR. The most current longest follow-up data for each RCT were included. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Survival data were pooled for Kaplan-Meier analysis as well as parametric modeling with extrapolation. Results: Seven RCTs comprising 7774 patients were included. Mean valve gradient at 5 y was comparable between SAVR [11 mmHg (3.7; 18.3)] and TAVR [8.1 mmHg (1.9; 14.3)] (P = 0.38). TAVR had a higher mean valve area at 30 d, 1 y, and 2 y [1.68 cm2 (1.22; 2.13) versus 1.8 cm2 (1.35; 2.25), P = 0.02]. SAVR had a higher freedom from any paravalvular leak at 30 d and 1 y [86% (81; 90) versus 39% (36; 41), P < 0.01]. All-cause death was lower in the SAVR group at 5 y [39% (29; 50) versus 43% (31; 57), P < 0.01]. Although no differences were seen between SAVR and TAVR in the pooled Kaplan-Meier analysis of all-cause mortality and composite of all-cause mortality or stroke, parametric modeling with extrapolation showed significant divergence for both outcomes. Conclusions: Pooled all-cause mortality as well as pooled composite of all-cause mortality or stroke indicated better survival with SAVR at 5 y. Long-term parametric extrapolation also indicated superior survival with SAVR.
Long-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

Giuseppe Talanas,Angelo Laconi,Dean J Kereiakes,Pierluigi Merella,Michael J Reardon,Andrea Spano,Gerardo Petretto,Francesco Lauriola,Marta Casula,Valentina Micheluzzi,Mehriban Isgender,Yiannis Chatzizisis,Michael E Farkouh,Alexandra J Lansky,Nicolo Piazza,Michele Portoghese,Gavino Casu,Eliano Pio Navarese

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jscai.2024.102143

2024-05-15

Abstract:Background: We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing long-term outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis. The short-term efficacy and safety of TAVR are proven, but long-term outcomes are unclear. Methods: We included randomized controlled trials comparing TAVR vs SAVR at the longest available follow-up. The primary end point was death or disabling stroke. Secondary end points were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, stroke, pacemaker implantation, valve thrombosis, valve gradients, and moderate-to-severe paravalvular leaks. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023481856). Results: Seven trials (N = 7785 patients) were included. Weighted mean trial follow-up was 5.76 ± 0.073 years. Overall, no significant difference in death or disabling stroke was observed with TAVR vs SAVR (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.93-1.11; P = .70). Mortality risks were similar. TAVR resulted in higher pacemaker implantation and moderate-to-severe paravalvular leaks compared to SAVR. Results were consistent across different surgical risk profiles. As compared to SAVR, self-expanding TAVR had lower death or stroke risk (P interaction = .06), valve thrombosis (P interaction = .06), and valve gradients (P interaction < .01) but higher pacemaker implantation rates than balloon-expandable TAVR (P interaction < .01). Conclusions: In severe aortic stenosis, the long-term mortality or disabling stroke risk of TAVR is similar to SAVR, but with higher risk of pacemaker implantation, especially with self-expanding valves. As compared with SAVR, the relative reduction in death or stroke risk and valve thrombosis was greater with self-expanding than with balloon-expandable valves.
Meta-Analysis Comparing Results of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Patients With <i>Severe</i> Aortic Stenosis

Xinlin Zhang,Tingyu Wang,Rongfang Lan,Qing Dai,Lina Kang,Lian Wang,Yong Wang,Wei Xu,Biao Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.10.057

2020-01-01

Abstract:Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a promising strategy for treating patients with severe aortic stenosis. We aimed to compare TAVR with surgical aortic-valve replacement (SAVR) and determine the performance of TAVR over time and within several subgroups. We included 8 randomized trials comparing TAVR versus SAVR. Compared with SAVR, TAVR was associated with a lower rate of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 30-day (odds ratio [OR], 0.72; p = 0.004), 1-year (OR, 0.83; p = 0.01), and 2-year (OR, 0.86; p = 0.02), but not at long-term follow-up (rate ratio [RR], 1.02 [confidence interval 0.92 to 1.13]; p = 0.67). Notably, 5-year data showed numerically higher incidence in TAVR (RR, 1.11 [confidence interval 0.97 to 1.27]; p = 0.12). The risks associated with TAVR versus SAVR increased over time, showing a significant interaction (p for interaction = 0.01), as were for new-onset atrial fibrillation and rehospitalization. Incidences of major bleeding, new-onset fibrillation, and acute kidney injury were lower in TAVR, whereas transient ischemic attack, major vascular complications, permanent pacemaker implantation, reintervention, and paravalvular leak were lower in SAVR. Incidences for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke were not statistically different. TAVR with transfemoral approach and new-generation valve was associated with reduction in all-cause mortality or disabling stroke compared with corresponding comparators. In conclusion, TAVR was associated with a lower risk for allcause mortality or disabling stroke within 2 years, but not at long-term follow-up compared with SAVR; the risks seems to increase over time. More data are needed to determine longer-term performance of TAVR. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Transcatheter or Surgical Treatment of Aortic-Valve Stenosis

Stefan Blankenberg,Moritz Seiffert,Reinhard Vonthein,Helmut Baumgartner,Sabine Bleiziffer,Michael A Borger,Yeong-Hoon Choi,Peter Clemmensen,Jochen Cremer,Martin Czerny,Nina Diercks,Ingo Eitel,Stephan Ensminger,Derk Frank,Norbert Frey,Andreas Hagendorff,Christian Hagl,Christian Hamm,Utz Kappert,Matthias Karck,Won-Keun Kim,Inke R König,Markus Krane,Ulf Landmesser,Axel Linke,Lars S Maier,Steffen Massberg,Franz-Josef Neumann,Hermann Reichenspurner,Tanja K Rudolph,Christof Schmid,Holger Thiele,Raphael Twerenbold,Thomas Walther,Dirk Westermann,Erion Xhepa,Andreas Ziegler,Volkmar Falk,DEDICATE-DZHK6 Trial Investigators,Jörg W Schröder,Rüdiger Autschbach,Anno Diegeler,Sebastian Kerber,René Schramm,Tanja K Rudolf,Mohammad Sherif,Verena Stangl,Stephan Kische,Hüseyin Ince,Christian Butter,Johannes Albes,Justus Strauch,Andreas Mügge,Oliver Ritter,Tobias Zeus,Artur Lichtenberg,Stephan Achenbach,Oliver Dewald,Tienush Rassaf,Markus Kamler,David Leistner,Constantin von Zur Mühlen,Wolfgang Bothe,Oliver Dörr,Peter Roth,Hassina Baraki,Tim Seidler,Alexander Kaminski,Marcus Dörr,Britt Hofmann,Daniel Sedding,Lenard Conradi,Johann Bauersachs,Fabio Ius,Anna Meyer,Florian Leuschner,Christian Schulze,Torsten Doenst,Jörg Jöckel,Richard Feyrer,Elmar Kuhn,Stephan Baldus,Michael Borger,George Awad,Rüdiger Braun-Dullaeus,Ralph Stephan von Bardeleben,Daniel-Sebastian Dohle,Stephanie Voss,Michael Joner,Sven Martens,Lars Maier,Raffi Bekeredjian,Ulrich Franke,Wolfgang Rottbauer,Andreas Liebold

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2400685

2024-05-02

Abstract:Background: Among low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who are eligible for both transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic-valve replacement (SAVR), data are lacking on the appropriate treatment strategy in routine clinical practice. Methods: In this randomized noninferiority trial conducted at 38 sites in Germany, we assigned patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low or intermediate surgical risk to undergo either TAVI or SAVR. Percutaneous- and surgical-valve prostheses were selected according to operator discretion. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or fatal or nonfatal stroke at 1 year. Results: A total of 1414 patients underwent randomization (701 to the TAVI group and 713 to the SAVR group). The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 74±4 years; 57% were men, and the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 1.8% (low surgical risk). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the primary outcome at 1 year was 5.4% in the TAVI group and 10.0% in the SAVR group (hazard ratio for death or stroke, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.79; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The incidence of death from any cause was 2.6% in the TAVI group and 6.2% in the SAVR group (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.73); the incidence of stroke was 2.9% and 4.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.06). Procedural complications occurred in 1.5% and 1.0% of patients in the TAVI and SAVR groups, respectively. Conclusions: Among patients with severe aortic stenosis at low or intermediate surgical risk, TAVI was noninferior to SAVR with respect to death from any cause or stroke at 1 year. (Funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and the German Heart Foundation; DEDICATE-DZHK6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03112980.).
Early and late outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid-deployment valves versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of matched studies

Michel Pompeu Sá,Habib Jabagi,Aleksander Dokollari,Ahmed K Awad,Jef Van den Eynde,John H Malin,Serge Sicouri,Gianluca Torregrossa,Arjang Ruhparwar,Alexander Weymann,Basel Ramlawi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.30162

Abstract:Sutureless/rapid-deployment (SURD) valves are options different from the stented prostheses included in the pivotal trials comparing surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We performed a meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of matched studies published by November 2021 to compare SURD-AVR and TAVI. Primary endpoints were 30-day mortality and overall survival in the follow-up. Secondary endpoints included: 30-day stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), major bleeding, permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), paravalvular leak (PVL), prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), postoperative aortic valve area (AVA), and mean gradients. Ten studies met our eligibility criteria, including a total of 5134 patients (2567 underwent SURD-AVR and 2567 underwent TAVI). Pooled risk of 30-day mortality did not favor any group (odds ratio [OR]: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-1.53; p = 0.360). Patients undergoing SURD-AVR had lower risk of PVL (OR: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.05-0.17; p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed for 30-day stroke, AKI, major bleeding, PPI, PPM, and postoperative AVA. In the follow-up, we observed a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.26-2.40; p < 0.001) with TAVI. Patients who underwent SURD-AVR experienced better survival, however, the interpretation of these results warrant caution due to the fact that SURD-AVR patients tended to be younger than TAVI patients. Structural heart surgeons and interventional cardiologists should consider initial risk and life expectancy when referring patients for one approach over the other.
Six Sigma: not for the faint of heart.

A. Benedetto

2003-03-01

Abstract:Six Sigma is an excellent quality and performance improvement tool. Like any tool, the results of using it are highly dependent on whether you use it with competence and on the right problem. This article will help you decide if your problem is well-suited for a Six Sigma approach and will suggest the optimum approach for planning and implementing Six Sigma methodology. Performance improvement methods can be grouped into two broad categories, based on the problem to be addressed. When the problem is relatively minor and localized, "evolutionary" methods may be suitable (e.g., quality circles, problem-solving staff meetings, continuous quality improvement [CQI], total quality management [TQM]). These tools work best when modest incremental improvements are sought, when major process redesign is not thought to be necessary, and when the avoidance of workplace disruption is desired. Reengineering and Six Sigma are the best-known examples of the "revolutionary" performance improvement methods. These methods should be used when major (drastic, do or die, etc.) improvements are needed. Problems that cross departmental boundaries need these methods. When a process is so dysfunctional that you feel like you need to tear up the standard operating procedure (SOP) and start all over again, you need a revolutionary method. A Six Sigma project requires a major expenditure of money and employee time, and a willingness to make some hard decisions about jobs, employee retention and relationships among stakeholders. An institution's culture should be considered as part of the decision about using Six Sigma. If the institution has a history of making data-driven decisions, or at least has displayed openness to operating in that manner, Six Sigma has a good chance of success. A radiology-driven Six Sigma project should not be undertaken until a comprehensive written description of the scope of the project is approved by the radiology department leadership team and by the appropriate higher-level institutional leaders. This document should address the specific outcomes desired, the resources available, a rough tentative timeline, and any political constraints imposed on the project (e.g., inviolate HR policies, compatibility with enterprise strategic goals). The document should be comprehensive enough and explicit enough to be useful as a major component of the bid package for hiring a consultant or for writing the job description for the hiring of an in-house expert. A full-time project manager should be designated if an in-house expert is not hired. This person should be a senior leader in the department, but not the department director. Leading a Six Sigma project is a full-time job in itself and cannot be performed as an additional duty. Although it may be tempting to appoint a senior staff technologist or nurse, keep in mind that the project manager must have sufficient authority to expect cooperation from departmental supervisors without resorting to frequent appeals to the department director. Contact the institution's CIO and ask that a knowledgeable person on the IT staff be appointed to serve as the IT liaison for the project. This person should have in-depth familiarity with the HIS and the ways that it interfaces with the RIS (if the RIS is not a module within the HIS). Most importantly, this liaison must understand the exact data definitions and the origins of the data that are passed between the HIS and the RIS. The steering committee should consist of at least one physician and one department-level administrator from outside of the radiology department. From within the radiology department, there should be at least one radiologist and one senior modality manager (whose modality is not the primary focus), the project manager, and the manager of a radiology component that is a focus of the project (e.g., the film library manager). The consultant should be an ex officio member without vote. The steering committee should be small enough to be manageable, yet large enough to provide insight from both the radiology department and the rest of the institution. Because of the size of the steering committee and the difficulty of bringing so many people together for meetings, the day-to-day governance of the project will be provided by an informal "operations committee." When we consider "change" in the context of a Six Sigma project, we talk about a wide variety of topics, but they can be summarized usefully as dealing with processes, policies, physical plant and equipment, personnel, and politics (or culture). The first three of these lend themselves to quantitative analysis, or at least rigorously qualitative analysis. The final two, however, are subjective, ill-defined or not readily acknowledged, and fraught with potentially major challenges when it becomes necessary to implement changes in the first three. The Six Sigma process, as taught by GE, consists of five phases summarized by the acronym DMAIC: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control. This article deals mostly with the time period from first consideration of a possible Six Sigma project through the early part of the Define phase. It also discusses pitfalls that must be considered anytime throughout a project, from first thoughts of conducting a project until recommended changes become ingrained in the department's operations. Six Sigma compares baseline or historical data to data obtained after implementation of Six Sigma-driven changes in order to determine if desired changes in performance have been achieved. When historical data are not available, the Six Sigma team must collect baseline data as one of their earliest tasks. A Six Sigma project can easily last 18 to 24 months or longer. We must be sure that the data we collect during Month 18 are collected identically to the data we collected at baseline. A major performance improvement project is likely to require 12 to 24 months or longer. Upper management initially may be reluctant to appoint the "cream of the crop" to the project teams. Success is predicated on having the most knowledgeable personnel involved in the project. Without them, the chances of success are reduced. A Six Sigma project's length always exceeds the attention span of the vast majority of its participants. The department director and project manager must anticipate this and devote special efforts to maintaining motivation and momentum after the initial flurry of activity. The complexity of a Six Sigma project will be greatly increased, and all of the pitfalls discussed here will be exacerbated, if your facility has multiple sites. At the simplest, the multiple sites will introduce complications in getting personnel to come to project meetings. The complications will escalate if the sites are under different management, such as a confederated health system. The project manager and the consultant will expend additional time and effort dealing with these issues, which likely will lengthen the project unavoidably. The project manager must spend time with the department's external customers who have significant stakes in the project. At a minimum, this should include relatively formal meetings with other department directors or subordinate managers and key physician and nurse leaders, and attendance at their managerial or staff meetings (you may need to ask to be invited). Although paper or e-mail surveys can be helpful, only sustained personal contact with a stakeholder will truly allow you to understand how they interact with radiology and what their concerns are. As with daily operational management, a performance improvement project requires attention to policies, procedures, processes, physical plant and infrastructure, personnel, and perhaps most importantly, to politics.
Tailoring the porous hierarchy and the tetrahedral aluminum content by using carboxylate ligands: hierarchically structured macro-mesoporous aluminosilicates from a single molecular source.

Arnaud Lemaire,B. Su

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/la1033355

IF: 3.9

2010-10-13

Langmuir

Abstract:A novel yet facile synthesis pathway has been developed for the design of hierarchically structured macro-mesoporous aluminosilicates with high aluminum content at tetrahedral sites using a single molecular bifunctional alkoxide (sec-BuO)(2)-Al-O-Si(OEt)(3) precursor. The use of carboxylate ligands and a highly alkaline media slow down the polymerization rate of the aluminum alkoxide functionality, thus permitting the preservation of the intrinsic Al-O-Si linkage. The hierarchically structured porous aluminosilicate materials present an unprecedented low Si/Al ratio close to 1. Heat treatment applied to the synthesized material seems to favor the incorporation of aluminum into tetrahedral position (intraframework aluminum species). The macro-mesoporosity was spontaneously generated, without the use of any external templating agent, by the hydrodynamic flow of the solvents released during the rapid hydrolysis and condensation processes of this double alkoxide. This method results in materials with an open array of interconnected macrochannels. The synthesized aluminosilicate materials with tailorable macro-mesoporous hierarchy and very high Al content at tetrahedral position hold huge promise in various applications as catalysts, catalysts supports, or adsorbents.
A comparison of neurological event and mortality rates between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement

Shi-Min Yuan,Ai-Hong Yuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5114/aic.2023.131472

2023-01-01

Advances in Interventional Cardiology

Abstract:Introduction: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the treatment of choice for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis.Aim: To evaluate the neurological event and mortality rates of TAVI in comparison with those of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).Material and methods: A systematic literature search identified pertinent full-text journal articles published from 2000 to 2022 that were taken as the study materials.Results: Patients were at the age of 79.3 ±2.8 years and 79.9 ±2.9 years at the time of intervention/open surgery in the TAVI and SAVR groups, respectively. Patients' age and preoperative comorbidity rates were similar in both groups. A self-expanding valve prosthesis and a percutaneous transfemoral route were the most commonly used in patients receiving TAVI. The duration of the procedure and the hospital stay were much shorter, and the number of transfused blood units was much lower in the TAVI group than in the SAVR group. No significant intergroup difference was found in the prevalence of postoperative stroke, 1-month all-cause mortality, and 1-month and 1-year cardiovascular mortality rates. However, 1-year all-cause mortality was much lower in the TAVI than the SAVR group. The subgroups of risk stratification showed better outcomes for non-high-risk patients compared with high-risk patients.Conclusions: Irrespective of other postoperative complications of TAVI, this study emphasizes the postoperative major neurological events and mortality. TAVI appears to be superior to SAVR with regard to 1-year all-cause mortality. TAVI is thus recommended for elderly patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at very high surgical risk contraindicated for SAVR.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: an updated meta-analysis.

P. Jüni,S. Windecker,T. Petrinic,B. Prendergast,T. Pilgrim,F. Praz,S. Verma,A. Nikolakopoulou,T. Cahill,G. Siontis,L. Søndergaard,T. Modine,P. Overtchouk,G. Salanti

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/EURHEARTJ/EHZ275

IF: 39.3

2019-10-07

European Heart Journal

Abstract:AIMS Owing to new evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, we compared the collective safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) vs. surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) across the entire spectrum of surgical risk patients. METHODS AND RESULTS The meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016037273). We identified RCTs comparing TAVI with SAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis reporting at different follow-up periods. We extracted trial, patient, intervention, and outcome characteristics following predefined criteria. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality up to 2 years for the main analysis. Seven trials that randomly assigned 8020 participants to TAVI (4014 patients) and SAVR (4006 patients) were included. The combined mean STS score in the TAVI arm was 9.4%, 5.1%, and 2.0% for high-, intermediate-, and low surgical risk trials, respectively. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation was associated with a significant reduction of all-cause mortality compared to SAVR {hazard ratio [HR] 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-0.99], P = 0.030}; an effect that was consistent across the entire spectrum of surgical risk (P-for-interaction = 0.410) and irrespective of type of transcatheter heart valve (THV) system (P-for-interaction = 0.674). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation resulted in lower risk of strokes [HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.68-0.98), P = 0.028]. Surgical aortic valve replacement was associated with a lower risk of major vascular complications [HR 1.99 (95% CI 1.34-2.93), P = 0.001] and permanent pacemaker implantations [HR 2.27 (95% CI 1.47-3.64), P < 0.001] compared to TAVI. CONCLUSION Compared with SAVR, TAVI is associated with reduction in all-cause mortality and stroke up to 2 years irrespective of baseline surgical risk and type of THV system.

Medicine
Long-Term Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier-Derived Individual Patient Data

Junichi Shimamura,Sho Takemoto,Shinichi Fukuhara,Yoshihisa Miyamoto,Yujiro Yokoyama,Hisato Takagi,Dhaval Kolte,Kendra J Grubb,Toshiki Kuno,Azeem Latib,Polydoros N. Kampaktsis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.20.23287505

2023-03-25

MedRxiv

Abstract:Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is as an alternative treatment to surgical AVR, but the long-term outcomes of TAVR remain unclear. This study aimed to analyze long-term outcomes following TAVR using meta-analysis. Methods: A literature search was performed with MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar through December 2022; studies reporting clinical outcomes of TAVR with follow-up periods of {greater than or equal to} 8 years were included. The outcomes of interest were overall survival and/or freedom from structural valve deterioration (SVD). Surgical risk was assessed with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) predicted risk of mortality (PROM) score. A subgroup analysis was conducted for intermediate-/high-surgical risk patients only. Results: Eleven studies including 5,458 patients were identified and analyzed. The mean age was 82.0 {plus minus} 6.5 years, and mean STS PROM score ranged from 2.9 to 10.6%. Survival rate at 5 and 10 years was 47.7% {plus minus} 1.4% and 12.1 {plus minus} 2.0%. Five studies including 1,509 patients were analyzed for SVD. Freedom from SVD at 5 and 8 years was 95.5 {plus minus} 0.7% and 84.9 {plus minus} 3.1%. Similar results for survival and SVD were noted in the subgroup analysis of intermediate-/high-risk patients. Conclusions: Following TAVR, approximately 88% of patients died within 10 years, whereas 85% were free from SVD at 8 years. These date suggest that baseline patient demographic have the greatest impact on survival, and SVD does not seem to have a prognostic impact in this population. Further investigations on longer-term outcomes of younger and lower-risk patients are warranted.
Long-Term Results Following Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Rodolfo Caminiti,Alfonso Ielasi,Giampaolo Vetta,Antonio Parlavecchio,Domenico Giovanni Della Rocca,Mattia Glauber,Maurizio Tespili,Giampiero Vizzari,Antonio Micari

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.08.014

2024-08-20

Abstract:Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate or high surgical risk. Results after TAVR in low-risk patients are very encouraging at mid-term follow-up while limited long-term (≥ 3-year) data are available in this subset of patients. This meta-analysis aims to compare the long-term follow-up after TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk patients. We searched databases up to July 7th 2024, for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing TAVR versus SAVR in low-risk patients (defined as STS-PROM Score less than 4%). (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023480495). Primary outcome analysed was all-cause death at minimum 3-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes were: cardiovascular death, disabling stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), aortic valve reintervention, endocarditis, new-onset atrial fibrillation, permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF). A total of 3 RCTs with 2,644 patients (TAVR, n=1,371 patients; SAVR, n=1,273 patients) were included. Follow-up time was 6 ± 2.9 years. TAVR resulted non-inferior to SAVR for all-cause death [RR: 0.99 (95% CI: 0.84-1.17; p=0.89; I2=28%)], cardiovascular death [RR: 0.94 (95% CI: 0.76-1.15; p=0.54; I2=0%)], MI [RR: 1.06 (95% CI: 0.71-1.57; p=0.79; I2=61%)], aortic valve reintervention, endocarditis and BVF. New-onset atrial fibrillation was higher in the SAVR group, while PPI in the TAVR group. In conclusion our meta-analysis showed that TAVR is associated with similar long-term outcomes compared to SAVR in selected, low-risk patients.

Room-temperature operation of 1.27-&#181;m-wavelength InGaAsP/InP DH lasers fabricated on InP

Selection for transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement and mid-term survival: results of the AUTHEARTVISIT study

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid Vs. Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis among Patients at Low Surgical Risk in China: from the Multicenter National NTCVR Database

P1795Impact of severe aortic stenosis treatment strategy in low-risk patients: a propensity matched analysis of surgical aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation

30-Day Outcomes after Surgical or Transapical Aortic Valve Replacement in Symptomatic Aortic Regurgitation

Self-expanding Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients: 5-Year Outcomes of the SURTAVI Randomized Clinical Trial

[Physical activity and bone mineral content in postmenopausal women].

Demographics and outcomes of patients younger than 75 years undergoing aortic valve interventions in Rotterdam

Contemporary outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in patients referred for a transcatheter approach

Comparative Outcomes of Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-analysis and Parametric Extrapolation of Clinical Trials

Long-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

Meta-Analysis Comparing Results of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Patients With <i>Severe</i> Aortic Stenosis

Transcatheter or Surgical Treatment of Aortic-Valve Stenosis

Early and late outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid-deployment valves versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of matched studies

Six Sigma: not for the faint of heart.

Tailoring the porous hierarchy and the tetrahedral aluminum content by using carboxylate ligands: hierarchically structured macro-mesoporous aluminosilicates from a single molecular source.

A comparison of neurological event and mortality rates between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: an updated meta-analysis.

Long-Term Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier-Derived Individual Patient Data

Long-Term Results Following Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Room-temperature operation of 1.27-µm-wavelength InGaAsP/InP DH lasers fabricated on InP