CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

急性冠脉综合征

Abstract

Recommended Article

High-Sensitivity Troponins and Outcomes After Myocardial Infarction China PEACE risk estimation tool for in-hospital death from acute myocardial infarction: an early risk classification tree for decisions about fibrinolytic therapy Relationship Between Infarct Size and Outcomes Following Primary PCI: Patient-Level Analysis From 10 Randomized Trials Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction During the COVID-19 Pandemic Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated Medically or with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Undergoing Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights from the AUGUSTUS Trial A Randomized Trial of a 1-Hour Troponin T Protocol in Suspected Acute Coronary Syndromes: The Rapid Assessment of Possible ACS In the Emergency Department with High Sensitivity Troponin T (RAPID-TnT) Study Respiratory syncytial virus infection and risk of acute myocardial infarction Editor's Choice- Impact of immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus culprit lesion intervention on 1-year outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Results of the randomised IABP-SHOCK II trial

Original ResearchVolume 13, Issue 8, April 2020

JOURNAL:JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions Article Link

Incidence and Outcomes of Acute Coronary Syndrome After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

AMentias, MY Desai, M Saad et al. Keywords: ACS; post TAVR; PCI

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - This study sought to address a knowledge gap by examining the incidence, timing, and predictors of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in Medicare beneficiaries.

 

BACKGROUND - Evidence about incidence and outcomes of ACS after TAVR is scarce.

 

METHODS - We identified medicare patients who underwent tavr from 2012 to 2017 and were admitted with ACS during follow-up. We compared outcomes based on the type of ACS: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI (NSTEMI), and unstable angina. In patients with nonST-segment elevation ACS, we compared outcomes based on the treatment strategy (invasive vs. conservative) using inverse probability weighting analysis.

 

RESULTS - Out of 142,845 patients with TAVR, 6,741 patients (4.7%) were admitted with ACS after a median time of 297 days (interquartile range: 85 to 662 days), with 48% of admissions occurring within 6 months. The most common presentation was NSTEMI. Predictors of ACS were history of coronary artery disease, prior revascularization, diabetes, valve-in-TAVR, and acute kidney injury. STEMI was associated with higher 30-day and 1-year mortality compared with NSTEMI (31.4% vs. 15.5% and 51.2% vs. 41.3%, respectively; p < 0.01). Overall, 30.3% of patients with nonST-segment elevation ACS were treated with invasive approach. On inverse probability weighting analysis, invasive approach was associated with lower adjusted long-term mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 0.73; p < 0.01) and higher risk of repeat revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.29; 95% confidence interval: 1.16 to 1.43; p < 0.001).

 

CONCLUSIONS - After TAVR, ACS is infrequent (<5%), and the most common presentation is NSTEMI. Occurrence of STEMI after TAVR is associated with a high mortality with nearly one-third of patients dying within 30 days. Optimization of care is needed for post-TAVR ACS patients and if feasible, invasive approach should be considered in these high-risk patients.