CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Acute Coronary Syndrom

Abstract

Recommended Article

Improved outcomes in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction during the last 20 years are related to implementation of evidence-based treatments: experiences from the SWEDEHEART registry 1995-2014 Association Between Haptoglobin Phenotype and Microvascular Obstruction in Patients With STEMI: A Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Study Epinephrine Versus Norepinephrine for Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation FAMOUS-NSTEMI randomized trial Clarification of Myocardial Infarction Types Comparison in prevalence, predictors, and clinical outcome of VSR versus FWR after acute myocardial infarction: The prospective, multicenter registry MOODY trial-heart rupture analysis Timing of Oral P2Y12 Inhibitor Administration in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Dynamic Myocardial Ultrasound Localization Angiography

Original ResearchFebruary 2020 Vol 13, Issue 2

JOURNAL:Circ Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Acute Coronary Syndrome Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

L Faroux , E Munoz-Garcia, J Rodes-Cabau et al. Keywords: ACS post TAVR; MACE; MACCE

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Scarce data exist on coronary events following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), and no study has determined the factors associated with poorer outcomes in this setting. This study sought to determine the clinical characteristics, outcomes, and prognostic factors of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) events following TAVR.

 

METHODS - Multicenter cohort study including a total of 270 patients presenting an ACS after a median time of 12 (interquartile range, 5–17) months post-TAVR. Post-ACS death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and overall major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events were recorded.

 

RESULTS - The ACS clinical presentation consisted of non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) type 2 (31.9%), non–STEMI type 1 (31.5%), unstable angina (28.5%), and STEMI (8.1%). An invasive strategy was used in 163 patients (60.4%), and a percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 97 patients (35.9%). Coronary access issues were observed in 2.5% and 2.1% of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention procedures, respectively. The in-hospital mortality rate was 10.0%, and at a median follow-up of 17 (interquartile range, 5–32) months, the rates of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events were 43.0%, 4.1%, 15.2%, and 52.6%, respectively. By multivariable analysis, revascularization at ACS time was associated with a reduction of the risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.36–0.81] P=0.003), whereas STEMI increased the risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio, 2.06 [95% CI, 1.05–4.03] P=0.036) and major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (hazard ratio, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.08–3.57] P=0.026).

 

CONCLUSIONS - ACS events in TAVR recipients exhibited specific characteristics (ACS presentation, low use of invasive procedures, coronary access issues) and were associated with a poor prognosis, with a very high in-hospital and late death rate. STEMI and the lack of coronary revascularization determined an increased risk. These results should inform future studies to improve both the prevention and management of ACS post-TAVR.