BACKGROUND: There are no direct comparisons between transapical aortic valve implantation (TA-AVI) and transfemoral aortic valve implantation (TF-AVI). Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the short-term and midterm outcomes of TA-AVI versus TF-AVI. METHODS: Data from four European centers were pooled and analyzed. To minimize differences between TA-AVI and TF-AVI multivariable analysis was used. Study endpoints were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-I criteria at 30 days and 1 year. Primary endpoints of this study were 30-day all-cause mortality and mortality during follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 882 patients underwent TAVI, of whom 793 (89.9%) underwent TF-AVI and 89 (10.1%) underwent TA-AVI. Patients undergoing TA-AVI had a higher estimated risk of mortality as defined by the logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score (median 27.0, interquartile range [IQR]: 20.2 to 33.8 versus median 20.0, IQR: 12.3 to 27.7; p < 0.001) and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Score (median 10.2, IQR: 5.3 to 9.9 versus median 6.7, IQR: 3.5 to 9.9; p < 0.001) and had more comorbidities. At 30 days, there was an increased risk of all-cause mortality in the TA-AVI group (odds ratio [OR] 3.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43 to 6.82; p = 0.004). TF-AVI was associated with a higher frequency of major (OR 0.33, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.90; p = 0.031) and minor vascular complications (OR 0.17, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.71; p = 0.0015). In-hospital stay was significantly longer among patients undergoing TA-AVI (OR 2.29, 95% CI: 1.28 to 4.09; p = 0.05). During a median follow-up of 365 days (IQR: 174 to 557), TA-AVI was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.88, 95% CI: 1.23 to 2.87; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In institutions performing a low volume of TA-AVI, the technique is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality and longer hospital stay but less vascular complications in comparison with TF-AVI. The interaction between experience and type of treatment on outcome requires further investigation before advocating one treatment over the other.
BACKGROUND: There are no direct comparisons between transapical aortic valve implantation (TA-AVI) and transfemoral aortic valve implantation (TF-AVI). Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the short-term and midterm outcomes of TA-AVI versus TF-AVI. METHODS: Data from four European centers were pooled and analyzed. To minimize differences between TA-AVI and TF-AVI multivariable analysis was used. Study endpoints were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-I criteria at 30 days and 1 year. Primary endpoints of this study were 30-day all-cause mortality and mortality during follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 882 patients underwent TAVI, of whom 793 (89.9%) underwent TF-AVI and 89 (10.1%) underwent TA-AVI. Patients undergoing TA-AVI had a higher estimated risk of mortality as defined by the logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score (median 27.0, interquartile range [IQR]: 20.2 to 33.8 versus median 20.0, IQR: 12.3 to 27.7; p < 0.001) and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Score (median 10.2, IQR: 5.3 to 9.9 versus median 6.7, IQR: 3.5 to 9.9; p < 0.001) and had more comorbidities. At 30 days, there was an increased risk of all-cause mortality in the TA-AVI group (odds ratio [OR] 3.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43 to 6.82; p = 0.004). TF-AVI was associated with a higher frequency of major (OR 0.33, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.90; p = 0.031) and minor vascular complications (OR 0.17, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.71; p = 0.0015). In-hospital stay was significantly longer among patients undergoing TA-AVI (OR 2.29, 95% CI: 1.28 to 4.09; p = 0.05). During a median follow-up of 365 days (IQR: 174 to 557), TA-AVI was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.88, 95% CI: 1.23 to 2.87; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In institutions performing a low volume of TA-AVI, the technique is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality and longer hospital stay but less vascular complications in comparison with TF-AVI. The interaction between experience and type of treatment on outcome requires further investigation before advocating one treatment over the other.
Authors: Sahil Khera; Dhaval Kolte; Tanush Gupta; Andrew Goldsweig; Poonam Velagapudi; Ankur Kalra; Gilbert H L Tang; Wilbert S Aronow; Gregg C Fonarow; Deepak L Bhatt; Herbert D Aronow; Neal S Kleiman; Michael Reardon; Paul C Gordon; Barry Sharaf; J Dawn Abbott Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Alexander C Fanaroff; Pratik Manandhar; David R Holmes; David J Cohen; J Kevin Harrison; G Chad Hughes; Vinod H Thourani; Michael J Mack; Matthew W Sherwood; W Schuyler Jones; Sreekanth Vemulapalli Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 6.546