IMPORTANCE Prior studies investigating the long-term clinical outcomes of patients who have undergone permanent pacemaker implantation after aortic valve replacement reported conflicting results.OBJECTIVE To investigate long-term outcomes after primary surgical aortic valve replacement among patients who underwent postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis cohort study included all patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement in Sweden from 1997 to 2018. All patients who underwent primary surgical aortic valve replacement in Sweden and survived the first 30 days after surgical treatment were included. Patients who underwent preoperative permanent pacemaker implantation, concomitant surgical treatment for another valve, or emergency surgical treatment were excluded.Patients who underwent concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting or surgical treatment of the ascending aorta were included. Follow-up data were complete for all patients. Data were analyzed from October through December 2020.EXPOSURES Patients underwent implantation of a permanent pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator within 30 days after aortic valve replacement. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was all-cause mortality. RESULTS Among 24 983 patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement, 849 patients (3.4%) underwent permanent pacemaker implantation within 30 days after surgical treatment and 24 134 patients (96.6%) did not receive pacemakers in that time. The mean (SD) age of the total study population was 69.7 (10.8) years, and 9209 patients were women (36.9%). The mean (SD) and maximum follow-up periods were 7.3 (5.0) years and 22.0 years, respectively. At 10 years and 20 years after surgical treatment, the Kaplan-Meier estimated survival rates were 52.8% and 18.0% in the pacemaker group, respectively, and 57.5% and 19.6% in the nonpacemaker group, respectively. All-cause mortality was statistically significantly increased in the pacemaker group compared with the nonpacemaker group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.29; P = .03), and so was risk of heart failure hospitalization (HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.31-1.89; P < .001). No statistically significant increase was found in the risk of endocarditis in the pacemaker group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThis study found that there were increased risks of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization among patients who underwent permanent pacemaker implantation after surgical aortic valve replacement, suggesting that these risks are important considerations, especially in an era when transcatheter aortic valve replacement is used in younger patients at lower risk of adverse surgical outcomes. These findings further suggest that future (continued) Key Points Question Is permanent pacemaker implantation after aortic valve replacement associated with long-term adverse clinical outcomes? Findings In this cohort study of 24 983 patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement, increased risks of death a...
Background. Previous studies have reported superior hemodynamic performance with bovine bioprosthetic aortic valves compared with porcine valves. However, conflicting results mean the long-term effect on survival is not well known. The aim of this study was to examine long-term survival, rate of aortic valve reoperations, and heart failure hospitalizations after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) with porcine vs bovine bioprosthetic valves. Methods. This was a population-based cohort study including all patients who had undergone AVR in Sweden from 1995 to 2012, with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting. Patients were identified through the SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) registry. Baseline and outcome data were gathered from national registries. Propensity scores and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to control for intergroup differences. Analyses accounted for competing risk of death when appropriate.
Purpose of ReviewSeveral advances have been made in recent years to improve outcome for patients with coronary artery disease. One of the most debated topics regarding surgical treatment with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is graft selection. This review aims to present the current status and scientific evidence for bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) grafting.Recent FindingsObservational studies and pooled analyses suggest that BITA grafting is associated with improved survival. Early results from a large randomized controlled trial report safety and efficacy of the method. The improved survival might be amplified in select groups, but with an increase in sternal wound-related complications. The benefit of BITA grafts seems to remain to an approximate age of 69 years at surgery.SummaryCABG with BITA grafts is likely associated with improved long-term survival at a cost of an increase in sternal wound infections. Ten-year results from the Arterial Revascularization Trial are expected in 2018, providing the best evidence regarding the method yet. Early results show it is a safe method in most patient categories considerable for CABG.
Background: Evidence for pulmonary metastasectomy following colorectal cancer (CRC) is scarce. The aim of the study was to investigate long-term survival and identify prognostic factors to aid patient selection. Methods: We included all patients who underwent pulmonary resections for CRC metastases between January 01, 2004 and December 31, 2015 in a population-based cohort study. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality and was ascertained from Swedish national registers. The Kaplan-Meier estimator was used to calculate cumulative survival. We used Cox regression for estimation of hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between patient characteristics and survival. During a median follow-up time of 3.2 years, 36% (66/184) patients died. Overall survival at 5 years was 60% (95% CI: 50-68%) and was significantly lower compared to an age-and gender-matched Swedish population. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level was identified as a prognostic factor for mortality in the age and sex-adjusted analysis (HR, 2.46; 95% CI: 1.15-5.26, P=0.020). Conclusions: We found a steady increase in the number of pulmonary metastasectomies after CRC during the study period. We identified prethoracotomy CEA level as a prognostic factor for long-term survival, which was consistent with prior reports. The 5-year overall survival rate in our study was 60%, which was high in comparison with prior reports. Although our results indicated that current patient selection criteria were reasonable, definitive evidence of efficacy is pending.
Five-year survival after surgery for pulmonary metastases from CRC in Sweden was similar or higher compared with contemporary reports. A prognostic model, initially developed in Japanese patients, had excellent discrimination in an external validation cohort of Swedish patients.
IMPORTANCEThe performance of bioprosthetic aortic valves is usually assessed in single valve models or head-to-head comparisons. National databases or registries offer the opportunity to investigate all available valve models in the population and allows for a comparative assessment of their performance. OBJECTIVETo analyze the long-term rates of reintervention, all-cause mortality, and heart failure hospitalization associated with commonly used bioprosthetic aortic valves and to identify valve model groups with deviation in clinical performance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This population-based, nationwide cohort study included all adult patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery or ascending aortic surgery) in Sweden between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2018. Patients were identified from the SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) registry. Patients with concomitant valve surgery, previous cardiac surgery, and previous transcatheter valve replacement were excluded. Follow-up was complete for all participants. Data were analyzed from March 9, 2020, to October 12, 2021.
ObjectiveBlood type A antigen on porcine aortic bioprostheses might initiate an immune reaction leading to an increased frequency of structural valve deterioration in patients with blood type B or O. The aim was to analyse the association between ABO blood type and porcine bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration.DesignObservational nationwide cohort study.SettingSwedish population-based study.ParticipantsAdult patients (n=3417) who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement and received porcine bioprosthetic aortic valves between 1995 and 2012 from the Swedish Web system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies register. The study database was enriched with information from other national registers.ExposureThe patients were categorised into type A/AB and type B/O blood groups.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcome measure was aortic valve reoperation, and secondary outcomes were heart failure and all-cause mortality. We report risk estimates that account for the competing risk of death.ResultsIn total, 3417 patients were identified: 1724 (50.5%) with blood type A/AB and 1693 (49.5%) with blood type B/O. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics. The cumulative incidence of aortic valve reoperation was 3.4% (95% CI 2.5% to 4.4%) and 3.6% (95% CI 2.6% to 4.6%) in the type B/O and the A/AB group, respectively, at 15 years of follow-up (absolute risk difference: −0.2% (95% CI −1.5% to 1.2%)). There was no significantly increased risk for aortic valve reoperation in patients with blood type B/O compared with type A/AB (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.45). There was no significant difference in absolute or relative risk of heart failure or death between the groups.ConclusionsWe found no significant association between patient blood type and clinical manifestations of structural valve deterioration following porcine aortic valve replacement. Our findings suggest that it is safe to use porcine bioprosthetic valves without consideration of ABO blood type in the recipient.Trial registration numberNCT02276950
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.