FABIO SANDOLI DE BRITO JUNIOR
Índice h a partir de 2011
11
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Instituto do Coração, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina - Médico
9 resultados
Resultados de Busca
Agora exibindo 1 - 9 de 9
conferenceObject Diabetes mellitus in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation in 11,440 patients from the CENTER collaboration(2020) NIEUWKERK, A. C. Van; SANTOS, R. B.; MATA, R. Blanco; TCHETHCE, D.; BRITO, F. S. De; KORNOWSKI, R.; LATIB, A.; OTEO-DOMINGUEZ, J.; DUMONTEIL, N.; D'ERRIGO, P.; TARANTINI, G.; LUNARDI, M.; DANGAS, G.; BAAN, J.; DELEWI, R.conferenceObject Predictors of renal function improvement in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing TAVR(2019) LEMES, M. V. S.; BACELAR, A. C.; ROSA, V. E. E.; CAIXETA, A. M.; LEMOS, P. A.; RIBEIRO, H. B.; ALMEIDA, B. O.; MARIANI, J.; CAMPOS, C. A. H. M.; TARASOUTCHI, F.; FRANKEN, M.; BRITO, F. S.conferenceObject Valve-in-valve procedure for bioprosthesis dysfunction in rheumatic patients: a new procedure for an old disease(2021) LOPES, M. P.; ROSA, V. Emer Egypto; PALMA, J. H.; FERNANDES, J. R. C.; SANTIS, A. S. A. L. De; SPINA, G. S.; ABIZAID, A. C.; BRITO JR., F. S. De; TARASOUTCHI, F.; SAMPAIO, R. O.; RIBEIRO, H. B.conferenceObject Impact of low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis in short-and long-term follow-up after TAVI: Insights from the Brazilian TAVI Registry(2018) ROSA, V. Emer Egypto; CAMPOS, C. M.; JATENE, T.; CARVALHO, L. A. F.; SIQUEIRA, D. A.; LEMOS, P. A.; THIAGO, L. E. K. Sao; ESTEVES, V.; TARASOUTCHI, F.; BRITO JR., F. S. DeconferenceObject Predictors and outcomes of acute, sub-acute and early stroke following transcatheter aortic valve implantation(2022) NIEUWKERK, A. C. Van; ALFONSO, F.; TCHETCHE, D.; BRITO JR., F. S. De; BARBANTI, M.; LATIB, A.; KORNOWSKI, R.; D'ONOFRIO, A.; RIBICHINI, F.; MEHRAN, R.; DELEWI, R.conferenceObject Multimodality imaging and systemic biomarkers in classical low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis: key findings for cardiac remodeling evaluation(2021) LOPES, M. A. A. A. M. L.; CAMPOS, C. M.; ROSA, V. E. E.; SAMPAIO, R. O.; MORAIS, T. C.; BRITO, F. S.; VIEIRA, M. L. C.; MATHIAS, W.; MEDEIROS, H. N. A. A.; SANTIS, A. S. A. L.; ROCHITTE, C. E.; RIBEIRO, M. H.; SANTOS, L. M.; ABIZAID, A.; TARASOUTCHI, F.- Outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement for degenerated bioprostheses, failed annuloplasty rings, and mitral annular calcification(2019) YOON, Sung-Han; WHISENANT, Brian K.; BLEIZIFFER, Sabine; DELGADO, Victoria; DHOBLE, Abhijeet; SCHOFER, Niklas; ESCHENBACH, Lena; BANSAL, Eric; MURDOCH, Dale J.; ANCONA, Marco; SCHMIDT, Tobias; YZEIRAJ, Ermela; VINCENT, Flavien; NIIKURA, Hiroki; KIM, Won-Keun; ASAMI, Masahiko; UNBEHAUN, Axel; HIRJI, Sameer; FUJITA, Buntaro; SILASCHI, Miriam; TANG, Gilbert H. L.; KUWATA, Shingo; WONG, S. Chiu; FRANGIEH, Antonio H.; BARKER, Colin M.; DAVIES, James E.; LAUTEN, Alexander; DEUSCHL, Florian; NOMBELA-FRANCO, Luis; RAMPAT, Rajiv; NICZ, Pedro Felipe Gomes; MASSON, Jean-Bernard; WIJEYSUNDERA, Harindra C.; SIEVERT, Horst; BLACKMAN, Daniel J.; GUTIERREZ-IBANES, Enrique; SUGIYAMA, Daisuke; CHAKRAVARTY, Tarun; HILDICK-SMITH, David; BRITO JR., Fabio Sandoli de; JENSEN, Christoph; JUNG, Christian; SMALLING, RichardW.; ARNOLD, Martin; REDWOOD, Simon; KASEL, Albert Markus; MAISANO, Francesco; TREEDE, Hendrik; ENSMINGER, Stephan M.; KAR, Saibal; KANEKO, Tsuyoshi; PILGRIM, Thomas; SORAJJA, Paul; BELLE, Eric Van; PRENDERGAST, Bernard D.; BAPAT, Vinayak; MODINE, Thomas; SCHOFER, Joachim; FRERKER, Christian; KEMPFERT, Joerg; ATTIZZANI, Guilherme F.; LATIB, Azeem; SCHAEFER, Ulrich; WEBB, John G.; BAX, Jeroen J.; MAKKAR, Raj R.Aims We sought to evaluate the outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) for patients with degenerated bioprostheses [valve-in-valve (ViV)], failed annuloplasty rings [valve-in-ring (ViR)], and severe mitral annular calcification [valve-in-mitral annular calcification (ViMAC)]. Methods and results From the TMVR multicentre registry, procedural and clinical outcomes of ViV, ViR, and ViMAC were compared according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) criteria. A total of 521 patients with mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 9.0 +/- 7.0% underwent TMVR (322 patients with ViV, 141 with ViR, and 58 with ViMAC). Trans-septal access and the Sapien valves were used in 39.5% and 90.0%, respectively. Overall technical success was excellent at 87.1%. However, left ventricular outflow tract obstruction occurred more frequently after ViMAC compared with ViR and ViV (39.7% vs. 5.0% vs. 2.2%; P < 0.001), whereas second valve implantation was more frequent in ViR compared with ViMAC and ViV (12.1% vs. 5.2% vs. 2.5%; P < 0.001). Accordingly, technical success rate was higher after ViV compared with ViR and ViMAC (94.4% vs. 80.9% vs. 62.1%; P < 0.001). Compared with ViMAC and ViV groups, ViR group had more frequent post-procedural mitral regurgitation >= moderate (18.4% vs. 13.8% vs. 5.6%; P < 0.001) and subsequent paravalvular leak closure (7.8% vs. 0.0% vs. 2.2%; P = 0.006). All-cause mortality was higher after ViMAC compared with ViR and ViV at 30 days (34.5% vs. 9.9% vs. 6.2%; log-rank P < 0.001) and 1 year (62.8% vs. 30.6% vs. 14.0%; log-rank P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, patients with failed annuloplasty rings and severe MAC were at increased risk of mortality after TMVR [ViR vs. ViV, hazard ratio (HR) 1.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 - 3.12; P 0.003; ViMAC vs. ViV, HR 5.29, 95% CI 3.29 - 8.51; P < 0.001]. Conclusion The TMVR provided excellent outcomes for patients with degenerated bioprostheses despite high surgical risk. However, ViR and ViMAC were associated with higher rates of adverse events and mid-term mortality compared with ViV.
conferenceObject Transcatheter aortic valve implantation without contrast media technique in chronic kidney disease population - pilot study(2022) NICZ, P.; FREIRE, A. F. D.; FILIPPINI, F. B.; KANHOUCHE, G.; ACCORSI, T. A. D.; RIBEIRO, H. B.; LIBERATO, G.; NOMURA, C. H.; CASSAR, R. S.; VIEIRA, M. L.; MATHIAS, W.; POMERANTZEFF, P. M. A.; TARASOUTCHI, F.; ABIZAID, A.; BRITO JR., F. S. De- Comparison of balloon-expandable vs. self-expandable valves in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation: from the CENTER-collaboration(2019) VLASTRA, Wieneke; CHANDRASEKHAR, Jaya; MUNOZ-GARCIA, Antonio J.; TCHETCHE, Didier; BRITO JR., Fabio S. de; BARBANTI, Marco; KORNOWSKI, Ran; LATIB, Azeem; D'ONOFRIO, Augusto; RIBICHINI, Flavio; BAAN, Jan; TIJSSEN, Jan G. P.; TRILLO-NOUCHE, Ramiro; DUMONTEIL, Nicolas; ABIZAID, Alexandre; SARTORI, Samantha; D'ERRIGO, Paola; TARANTINI, Giuseppe; LUNARDI, Mattia; ORVIN, Katia; PAGNESI, Matteo; VALLE, Raquel del; MODINE, Thomas; DANGAS, George; MEHRAN, Roxana; PIEK, Jan J.; DELEWI, RonakAims The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with balloon-expandable (BE) valves vs. self-expandable (SE) valves. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is a minimally invasive and lifesaving treatment in patients with aortic valve stenosis. Even though BE-valves and SE-valves are both commonly used on a large scale, adequately sized trials comparing clinical outcomes in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis treated with BE-valves compared with SE-valves are lacking. Methods and results In this CENTER-collaboration, data from 10 registries or clinical trials, selected through a systematic search, were pooled and analysed. Propensity score methodology was used to reduce treatment selection bias and potential confounding. The primary endpoints were mortality and stroke at 30 days follow-up in patients treated with BE valves compared with SE-valves. Secondary endpoints included clinical outcomes, e.g. bleeding during hospital admission. All outcomes were split for early-generation BE-valves compared with early-generation SE-valves and new-generation BE-valves with new-generation SE-valves. The overall patient population (N= 12 381) included 6239 patients undergoing TAVI with BE-valves and 6142 patients with SE-valves. The propensity matched population had a mean age of 81 +/- 7 years and a median STS-PROM score or 6.5% [interquartile range (IQR) 4.0-13.0%]. At 30-day follow-up, the mortality rate was not statistically different in patients undergoing TAVI with BE-valves compared with SE-valves [BE: 5.3% vs. SE: 6.2%, relative risk (RR) 0.9; 95% confidence interval (Cl) 0.7-1.0, P = 0.101 Stroke occurred less frequently in patients treated with BE-valves (BE: 1.9% vs. SE: 2.6%, RR 0.7; 95% CI 0.5 1.0, P = 0.03). Also, patients treated with BE-valves had a three-fold lower risk of requiring pacemaker implantation (BE: 7.8% vs. SE: 20.3%, RR 0.4; 95% CI 0.3-0.4, P<0.001). In contrast, patients treated with new-generation BE-valves more frequently experienced major and life-threatening bleedings compared with new-generation SE valves (BE: 4.8% vs. SE: 2.1%, RR 2.3; 95% CI 1.6-3.3, P < 0.001). Conclusion In this study, which is the largest study to compare valve types in TAVI, we demonstrated that the incidence of stroke and pacemaker implantation was lower in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI with BE-valves compared with SE-valves. In contrast, patients treated with new-generation BE-valves more often suffered from major or life-threatening bleedings than patients with new-generation SE-valves. Mortality at 30-days was not statistically different in patients treated with BE-valves compared with SE-valves. This study was a propensity-matched analysis generated from observational data, accordingly current outcomes will have to be confirmed in a large scale randomized controlled trial.