PABLO MARIA ALBERTO POMERANTZEFF
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Departamento de Cardio-Pneumologia, Faculdade de Medicina - Docente
Instituto do Coração, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
LIM/11 - Laboratório de Cirurgia Cardiovascular e Fisiopatologia da Circulação, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina - Líder
LIM/65, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
Instituto do Coração, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
LIM/11 - Laboratório de Cirurgia Cardiovascular e Fisiopatologia da Circulação, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina - Líder
LIM/65, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
2 resultados
Resultados de Busca
Agora exibindo 1 - 2 de 2
- Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Small Aortic Annulus: A Randomized Clinical Trial(2024) RODES-CABAU, Josep; RIBEIRO, Henrique Barbosa; MOHAMMADI, Siamak; SERRA, Vicenc; AL-ATASSI, Talal; INIGUEZ, Andres; VILALTA, Victoria; NOMBELA-FRANCO, Luis; SANCHEZ, Jose Ignacio Saez de Ibarra; AUFFRET, Vincent; FORCILLO, Jessica; CONRADI, Lenard; URENA, Marina; MORIS, Cesar; MUNOZ-GARCIA, Antonio; PARADIS, Jean-Michel; DUMONT, Eric; KALAVROUZIOTIS, Dimitri; POMERANTZEFF, Pablo Maria; ROSA, Vitor Emer Egypto; LOPES, Mariana Pezzute; SUREDA, Carles; DIAZ, Victor Alfonso Jimenez; GIULIANI, Carlos; AVVEDIMENTO, Marisa; PELLETIER-BEAUMONT, Emilie; PIBAROT, PhilippeBACKGROUND: The optimal treatment in patients with severe aortic stenosis and small aortic annulus (SAA) remains to be determined. This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic and clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with a SAA. METHODS: This prospective multicenter international randomized trial was performed in 15 university hospitals. Participants were 151 patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA (mean diameter <23 mm) randomized (1:1) to TAVR (n=77) versus SAVR (n=74). The primary outcome was impaired valve hemodynamics (ie, severe prosthesis patient mismatch or moderate-severe aortic regurgitation) at 60 days as evaluated by Doppler echocardiography and analyzed in a central echocardiography core laboratory. Clinical events were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 75.5 +/- 5.1 years, with 140 (93%) women, a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality of 2.50% (interquartile range, 1.67%-3.28%), and a median annulus diameter of 21.1 mm (interquartile range, 20.4-22.0 mm). There were no differences between groups in the rate of severe prosthesis patient mismatch (TAVR, 4 [5.6%]; SAVR, 7 [10.3%]; P=0.30) and moderate-severe aortic regurgitation (none in both groups). No differences were found between groups in mortality rate (TAVR, 1 [1.3%]; SAVR, 1 [1.4%]; P=1.00) and stroke (TAVR, 0; SAVR, 2 [2.7%]; P=0.24) at 30 days. After a median follow-up of 2 (interquartile range, 1-4) years, there were no differences between groups in mortality rate (TAVR, 7 [9.1%]; SAVR, 6 [8.1%]; P=0.89), stroke (TAVR, 3 [3.9%]; SAVR, 3 [4.1%]; P=0.95), and cardiac hospitalization (TAVR, 15 [19.5%]; SAVR, 15 [20.3%]; P=0.80). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA (women in the majority), there was no evidence of superiority of contemporary TAVR versus SAVR in valve hemodynamic results. After a median follow-up of 2 years, there were no differences in clinical outcomes between groups. These findings suggest that the 2 therapies represent a valid alternative for treating patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA, and treatment selection should likely be individualized according to baseline characteristics, additional anatomical risk factors, and patient preference. However, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution because of the limited sample size leading to an underpowered study, and need to be confirmed in future larger studies.
- Effect of Perioperative Goal-Directed Hemodynamic Resuscitation Therapy on Outcomes Following Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial and Systematic Review(2016) OSAWA, Eduardo A.; RHODES, Andrew; LANDONI, Giovanni; GALAS, Filomena R. B. G.; FUKUSHIMA, Julia T.; PARK, Clarice H. L.; ALMEIDA, Juliano P.; NAKAMURA, Rosana E.; STRABELLI, Tania M. V.; PILEGGI, Brunna; LEME, Alcino C.; FOMINSKIY, Evgeny; SAKR, Yasser; LIMA, Marta; FRANCO, Rafael A.; CHAN, Raquel P. C.; PICCIONI, Marilde A.; MENDES, Priscilla; MENEZES, Suellen R.; BRUNO, Tatiana; GAIOTTO, Fabio A.; LISBOA, Luiz A.; DALLAN, Luiz A. O.; HUEB, Alexandre C.; POMERANTZEFF, Pablo M.; KALIL FILHO, Roberto; JATENE, Fabio B.; AULER JUNIOR, Jose Otavio Costa; HAJJAR, Ludhmila A.Objectives: To evaluate the effects of goal-directed therapy on outcomes in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Design: A prospective randomized controlled trial and an updated metaanalysis of randomized trials published from inception up to May 1, 2015. Setting: Surgical ICU within a tertiary referral university-affiliated teaching hospital. Patients: One hundred twenty-six high-risk patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery or valve repair. Interventions: Patients were randomized to a cardiac output-guided hemodynamic therapy algorithm (goal-directed therapy group, n = 62) or to usual care (n = 64). In the goal-directed therapy arm, a cardiac index of greater than 3 L/min/m(2) was targeted with IV fluids, inotropes, and RBC transfusion starting from cardiopulmonary bypass and ending 8 hours after arrival to the ICU. Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of 30-day mortality and major postoperative complications. Patients from the goal-directed therapy group received a greater median (interquartile range) volume of IV fluids than the usual care group (1,000 [625-1,500] vs 500 [500-1,000] mL; p < 0.001], with no differences in the administration of either inotropes or RBC transfusions. The primary outcome was reduced in the goal-directed therapy group (27.4% vs 45.3%; p = 0.037). The goal-directed therapy group had a lower occurrence rate of infection (12.9% vs 29.7%; p = 0.002) and low cardiac output syndrome (6.5% vs 26.6%; p = 0.002). We also observed lower ICU cumulative dosage of dobutamine (12 vs 19 mg/kg; p = 0.003) and a shorter ICU (3 [3-4] vs 5 [4-7] d; p < 0.001) and hospital length of stay (9 [8-16] vs 12 [9-22] d; p = 0.049) in the goal-directed therapy compared with the usual care group. There were no differences in 30-day mortality rates (4.8% vs 9.4%, respectively; p = 0.492). The metaanalysis identified six trials and showed that, when compared with standard treatment, goal-directed therapy reduced the overall rate of complications (goal-directed therapy, 47/410 [11%] vs usual care, 92/415 [22%]; odds ratio, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.26-0.63]; p < 0.0001) and decreased the hospital length of stay (mean difference, -5.44 d; 95% CI, -9.28 to -1.60; p = 0.006) with no difference in postoperative mortality: 9 of 410 (2.2%) versus 15 of 415 (3.6%), odds ratio, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.26-1.47), and p = 0.27. Conclusions: Goal-directed therapy using fluids, inotropes, and blood transfusion reduced 30-day major complications in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery.