BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a therapeutic option for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. Procedural mortality remains high in comparison with conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) because patients determined for TAVI are commonly denied conventional surgery. We aimed to evaluate access-related complications between the transfemoral (TF) and the transapical (TA) approach and to compare survival between TAVI and conventional AVR in propensity-score-matched patients. METHODS: Between January 2008 and November 2009, 40 patients underwent TAVI (TF, n=10; TA, n=30) with the Edwards Sapien bioprosthesis (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). Survival and postoperative complications were evaluated between the TF and the TA approach. A comparison of survival was made between the TAVI patients and propensity-score-matched patients undergoing conventional AVR. RESULTS: Successful implantation rate was 92.5% (37 of 40). Thirty-day mortality was 5.0% (2 of 40), and the overall in-hospital mortality was 10.0% (4 of 40). Survival after TAVI was 77% at both 6 months and 1 year. Major vascular complications occurred in 3 of 10 patients (all in the TF group), and 3 of 40 patients (7.5%) suffered cerebrovascular events. A comparison of survival between TAVI and propensity score-matched conventional AVR patients showed no significant difference in either the TA group (p=0.73) or the TF group (p=0.59). CONCLUSIONS: The vascular complications occurring when using the TF approach were probably related to a combination of a wide introducer sheath and heavily calcified femoral arteries in a high-risk population. No serious complications were encountered when using the TA approach. After propensity-score matching, survival with both the TA and TF approaches is similar to that after AVR.
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a therapeutic option for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. Procedural mortality remains high in comparison with conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) because patients determined for TAVI are commonly denied conventional surgery. We aimed to evaluate access-related complications between the transfemoral (TF) and the transapical (TA) approach and to compare survival between TAVI and conventional AVR in propensity-score-matched patients. METHODS: Between January 2008 and November 2009, 40 patients underwent TAVI (TF, n=10; TA, n=30) with the Edwards Sapien bioprosthesis (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). Survival and postoperative complications were evaluated between the TF and the TA approach. A comparison of survival was made between the TAVI patients and propensity-score-matched patients undergoing conventional AVR. RESULTS: Successful implantation rate was 92.5% (37 of 40). Thirty-day mortality was 5.0% (2 of 40), and the overall in-hospital mortality was 10.0% (4 of 40). Survival after TAVI was 77% at both 6 months and 1 year. Major vascular complications occurred in 3 of 10 patients (all in the TF group), and 3 of 40 patients (7.5%) suffered cerebrovascular events. A comparison of survival between TAVI and propensity score-matched conventional AVR patients showed no significant difference in either the TA group (p=0.73) or the TF group (p=0.59). CONCLUSIONS: The vascular complications occurring when using the TF approach were probably related to a combination of a wide introducer sheath and heavily calcified femoral arteries in a high-risk population. No serious complications were encountered when using the TA approach. After propensity-score matching, survival with both the TA and TF approaches is similar to that after AVR.
Authors: Vasco da Gama Ribeiro; Luis Vouga; Alan Markowitz; Hiram G Bezerra; Pedro Braga; Muhammad Ansari; Daniel Leite; Joao Rocha; Monica Carvalho; Daniel I Simon; Marco A Costa Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-08-31 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Joshua L Chan; Dumitru Mazilu; Justin G Miller; Timothy Hunt; Keith A Horvath; Ming Li Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Keith A Horvath; Dumitru Mazilu; Junfeng Cai; Bogdan Kindzelski; Ming Li Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2014-11-01 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: L Ruggeri; C Gerli; A Franco; L Barile; M S Magnano di San Lio; N Villari; A Zangrillo Journal: HSR Proc Intensive Care Cardiovasc Anesth Date: 2012