Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.
GFR improves after TA-AVI. Postoperative AKI and RRT depend on the amount of intra-operative contrast agent. These results strongly support the need for intra-operative tools to reduce contrast-agent exposition during TA-AVI.
Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) without predilatation has fewer procedural steps and thereby potentially fewer complications. This has been demonstrated for the antegrade transapical access; however, whether TAVI can be safely performed without predilatation using the retrograde transfemoral route is unknown. Hypothesis: We postulated that TAVI is feasible with a balloon-expandable device without predilatation using the retrograde transfemoral route. Methods: Twenty-six consecutive patients with stenosis of the native aortic valve (AV) undergoing transfemoral TAVI with the Edwards SAPIEN XT prosthesis without predilatation were enrolled in this retrospective study and compared with 30 patients treated previously with predilatation. prior to discharge these values were 1.7 ± 0.3 (P < 0.001), 9.8 ± 6.1 mm Hg (P < 0.001), and 57.5% (IQR, 38.7-60.0) (P = not significant). Postdilatation was required in 3 patients due to aortic regurgitation >2• ; this was reduced by the procedure to <2• in all cases. Radiation dose and amount of contrast dye were significantly reduced in comparison with the predilatation group. No periprocedural neurological adverse events occurred. Mortality at 30 days was 0%. Conclusions: TAVI without predilatation using the transfemoral Edwards SAPIEN XT valve is feasible and safe. Larger studies are required to further evaluate this approach.
Both the 'effective' CT diameter and end-systolic TEE values are the most reliable approaches for preoperative aortic annulus sizing. In patients with a pronounced oval-shaped annulus, the 'effective' CT diameter seems to be the method of choice. Therefore, aortic annulus measurement using 'effective' CT diameters should be included into current recommendations for TAVI sizing.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.