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
- Myocardial Injury After Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement Versus Surgical Reoperation(2024) MARCHI, Mauricio Felippi de Sa; ROSA, Vitor Emer Egypto; NICZ, Pedro Felipe Gomes; FONSECA, Jose Honorio de Almeida Palma da; CALOMENI, Pedro; CHIODINI, Fernando; SAMPAIO, Roney Orismar; POMERANTZEFF, Pablo Maria Alberto; VIEIRA, Marcelo de Campos; TARASOUTCHI, Flavio; MIEGHEM, Nicolas M. Van; BRITO, Fabio Sandoli de; ABIZAID, Alexandre; RIBEIRO, Henrique BarbosaThis study aimed to evaluate the incidence and clinical implications of myocardial injury, as determined by cardiac biomarker increase, in patients who underwent mitral bioprosthesis dysfunction treatment with transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) versus surgical mitral valve replacement reoperation (SMVR-REDO). Between 2014 and 2023, 310 patients with mitral bioprosthesis failure were included (90 and 220 patients for TMVR and SMVR-REDO, respectively). Multivariable analysis and propensity score matching were performed to adjust for the intergroup differences in baseline characteristics. Creatinine kinase-MB (CK-MB) and cardiac troponin I (cTn) were collected at baseline and 6 to 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours after intervention. The cardiac biomarkers values were evaluated in relation to their reference values. The outcomes were determined according to the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria. CK-MB and cTn increased above the reference level in almost all patients after SMVR-REDO and TMVR (100% vs 94%, respectively), with the peak occurring within 6 to 12 hours. SMVR-REDO was associated with a two- to threefold higher increase in cardiac biomarkers. After 30 days, the mortality rates were 13.3% in the TMVR and 16.8% in the SMVR-REDO groups. At a median follow-up of 19 months, the mortality rates were 21.1% in the TMVR and 17.7% in the SMVR-REDO groups. Left ventricular ejection fraction, estimated glomerular filtration rate, CK-MB, and cTn were predictors of mortality. In conclusion, some degree of myocardial injury occurred systematically after the treatment of mitral bioprosthetic degeneration, especially after SMVR, and higher CK-MB and cTn levels were associated with increased cumulative late mortality, regardless of the approach.
- 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.