OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the procedural and 2-year results of the subclavian approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared with those of the femoral approach by using propensity-matched analysis. BACKGROUND: The subclavian approach with the CoreValve prosthesis (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota) represents an interesting opportunity when the femoral access is unfeasible. METHODS: All consecutive patients enrolled in the Italian CoreValve Registry who underwent TAVI with the subclavian approach were included. Propensity score analysis was used to identify a matching group of patients undergoing femoral TAVI. RESULTS: Subclavian approach was used in 141 patients (61% men; median age 83 years; median logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score 23.7%). The femoral group of 141 patients was matched for baseline clinical characteristics, except for peripheral artery disease. The 2 groups showed similar procedural success (97.9% vs. 96.5%; p = 0.47), major vascular complications (5.0% vs. 7.8%; p = 0.33), life-threatening bleeding events (7.8% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.48), and combined safety endpoint (19.9% vs. 25.5%; p = 0.26). The subclavian group showed lower rates of acute kidney injury/stage 3 (4.3% vs. 9.9%; p = 0.02), of minor vascular complications at the 18-F sheath insertion site (2.1% vs. 11.3%; p = 0.003), and of all types of bleeding events related to vascular complications. Survival at 2 years was 74.0 ± 4.0% in the subclavian group compared with 73.7 ± 3.9% in the femoral group (p = 0.78). The 2-year freedom from cardiovascular death was 87.2 ± 3.1% versus 88.7 ± 2.8% in the subclavian versus femoral group, respectively (p = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: The subclavian approach for TAVI is safe and feasible, with procedural and medium-term results similar to the femoral approach. Subclavian access should be considered a valid option not only when the femoral approach is impossible but also when it is difficult, albeit feasible.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the procedural and 2-year results of the subclavian approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared with those of the femoral approach by using propensity-matched analysis. BACKGROUND: The subclavian approach with the CoreValve prosthesis (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota) represents an interesting opportunity when the femoral access is unfeasible. METHODS: All consecutive patients enrolled in the Italian CoreValve Registry who underwent TAVI with the subclavian approach were included. Propensity score analysis was used to identify a matching group of patients undergoing femoral TAVI. RESULTS: Subclavian approach was used in 141 patients (61% men; median age 83 years; median logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score 23.7%). The femoral group of 141 patients was matched for baseline clinical characteristics, except for peripheral artery disease. The 2 groups showed similar procedural success (97.9% vs. 96.5%; p = 0.47), major vascular complications (5.0% vs. 7.8%; p = 0.33), life-threatening bleeding events (7.8% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.48), and combined safety endpoint (19.9% vs. 25.5%; p = 0.26). The subclavian group showed lower rates of acute kidney injury/stage 3 (4.3% vs. 9.9%; p = 0.02), of minor vascular complications at the 18-F sheath insertion site (2.1% vs. 11.3%; p = 0.003), and of all types of bleeding events related to vascular complications. Survival at 2 years was 74.0 ± 4.0% in the subclavian group compared with 73.7 ± 3.9% in the femoral group (p = 0.78). The 2-year freedom from cardiovascular death was 87.2 ± 3.1% versus 88.7 ± 2.8% in the subclavian versus femoral group, respectively (p = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: The subclavian approach for TAVI is safe and feasible, with procedural and medium-term results similar to the femoral approach. Subclavian access should be considered a valid option not only when the femoral approach is impossible but also when it is difficult, albeit feasible.
Authors: Jayendrakumar S Patel; Amar Krishnaswamy; Lars G Svensson; E Murat Tuzcu; Stephanie Mick; Samir R Kapadia Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 2.931
Authors: Nicolas A Geis; Emmanuel Chorianopoulos; Klaus Kallenbach; Florian André; Sven T Pleger; Matthias Karck; Hugo A Katus; Raffi Bekeredjian Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2014-04-21 Impact factor: 5.460