Page 660 - Read Online
P. 660

Benito-González et al. Mini-invasive Surg 2020;4:67  I  http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2020.54                     Page 5 of 9

               Table 2. Short-term procedural outcomes
                All patients (n = 70)                             Frail (n = 27)  Non frail (n = 43)  P value
                       Days of admission           4 [4-5]       4 [4-5]        4 [4-5]          0.625
                Procedure Device time (min)        62.5 [45.0-86.0]  70.0 [42.0-95.0]  60.0 [45.0-85.0]  0.749
                       Fluoroscopy time (min)      40.8 [34.3-50.0]  43.4 [34.4-54.0]  40.4 [34.1-50.0]  0.768
                       Number of clips             1 [1-2]       1 [1-2]        1 [1-2]          0.359
                       Emergent cardiac surgery (%)  1.4         0              2.3              1.0
                       Procedural death (%)        0             0              0                1.0
                       Technical success (%)       98.6          100            97.7             1.0
                30-day  Cardiovascular intervention (%)  4.3     0              7.0              0.279
                       Stroke (%)                  0             0              0                1.0
                       Transient ischemic attack (%)  2.9        3.7            2.3
                       Major vascular complication (%)  2.9      3.7            2.3              1.0
                       Major structural complication (%)  0      0              0                1.0
                       Major bleeding (%)          7.1           11.1           4.7              0.367
                       Life-threatening or fatal bleeding (%)  0  0             0                1.0
                       Acute kidney injury grade 2 or 3 (%)  0   0              0                1.0
                       Death (%)                   1.4           3.7            0                0.386
                       Structural failure (%)      1.4           3.7            0                0.386
                       Functional failure (%)      8.6           11.1           7.0              0.670
                       Device success (%)          84.3          81.5           86.1             0.739







                                   P                                              P
















               Figure 1. Changes in NYHA functional class according to frailty status. NYHA: New York Heart Association

               Frail patients had a non-significantly higher rate of HF hospitalization (log-rank test: P = 0.080, Figure 2A),
               and a lower survival (log-rank test: P = 0.006, Figure 2B), compared to non-frail patients. Survival free
               of the composite endpoint was significantly lower in the group of frail patients (log-rank test: P = 0.013,
               Figure 2C), with a probability of survival with no HF re-admission at one-year follow up of 61.6% vs. 83.7%
               in frail and non-frail patients, respectively.

               In Cox regression analysis, frailty was significantly related to the composite endpoint in the univariate
               analysis (HR = 2.59; 95%CI: 1.24-5.41; P = 0.011). This association was not significantly modified (HR = 2.45;
               95%CI: 1.02-5.88; P = 0.044) after adjusting in a multivariate model including the following variables: age,
               diabetes mellitus, advanced chronic kidney disease (stage IIIb-V), pre-procedural NYHA functional class,
               high Seattle HF risk score, and atrial fibrillation.


               DISCUSSION
               This study analyzed the prevalence of frailty in a single-center cohort of patients undergoing elective
               PMVR, and its impact on clinical outcomes during a median follow-up over 1 year. The main findings of
   655   656   657   658   659   660   661   662   663   664   665