AIMS: It is currently unknown whether the expandable sheath (e-sheath) for transfemoral Edwards transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has a lower rate of access complications than the 18/19F fixed size sheath (f-sheath). Our aim was to compare the incidence of procedural complications when using f-sheath vs. e-sheath during TAVR. METHODS: We included 162 consecutive patients, implanted with the Edwards SAPIEN XT valve in our center. Access closure was obtained with the Prostar system in all cases. E-sheath was used in 80 patients (49%). RESULTS: Minimal ilio-femoral diameter was comparable in e-sheath and f-sheath groups: 6.7 (6.1-7.7) vs. 7 (6.2-8) mm, P = 0.25, as was the frequency of peripheral artery disease: 12.5% vs. 13.4%, P = 1.0. VARC major vascular complications rate was similar in the 2 groups: e-sheath 7 (8.8%) vs. f-sheath 6 (7.3%), P = 0.74, as was the incidence of minor vascular complications: 8 (10%) vs. 14 (17.1%), P = 0.19, life-threatening bleeding: 6 (7.5%) vs. 6 (7.3%), P = 0.96, major and minor bleeding and use of covered vascular stents: 9 (11%) vs. 6 (7.5%), P = 0.59. CONCLUSIONS: The e-sheath for TAVR with the Edwards valve did not show an advantage over the f-sheath in reducing vascular and bleeding complications.
AIMS: It is currently unknown whether the expandable sheath (e-sheath) for transfemoral Edwards transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has a lower rate of access complications than the 18/19F fixed size sheath (f-sheath). Our aim was to compare the incidence of procedural complications when using f-sheath vs. e-sheath during TAVR. METHODS: We included 162 consecutive patients, implanted with the Edwards SAPIEN XT valve in our center. Access closure was obtained with the Prostar system in all cases. E-sheath was used in 80 patients (49%). RESULTS: Minimal ilio-femoral diameter was comparable in e-sheath and f-sheath groups: 6.7 (6.1-7.7) vs. 7 (6.2-8) mm, P = 0.25, as was the frequency of peripheral artery disease: 12.5% vs. 13.4%, P = 1.0. VARC major vascular complications rate was similar in the 2 groups: e-sheath 7 (8.8%) vs. f-sheath 6 (7.3%), P = 0.74, as was the incidence of minor vascular complications: 8 (10%) vs. 14 (17.1%), P = 0.19, life-threatening bleeding: 6 (7.5%) vs. 6 (7.3%), P = 0.96, major and minor bleeding and use of covered vascular stents: 9 (11%) vs. 6 (7.5%), P = 0.59. CONCLUSIONS: The e-sheath for TAVR with the Edwards valve did not show an advantage over the f-sheath in reducing vascular and bleeding complications.
Authors: Till Koehler; Michael Buege; Heinrich Schleiting; Melchior Seyfarth; Klaus Tiroch; Marc Vorpahl Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Zisis Dimitriadis; Werner Scholtz; Stephan M Ensminger; Cornelia Piper; Thomas Bitter; Marcus Wiemer; Marios Vlachojannis; Jochen Börgermann; Lothar Faber; Dieter Horstkotte; Jan Gummert; Smita Scholtz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Michael Buege; Till Koehler; Ralf Heiderhoff; Marc Papenheim; Si Wang; Heinrich Schleiting; Wolfgang H Arnold; Jason R Foerst; Melchior Seyfarth; Klaus Tiroch; Thomas Riedl; Marc Vorpahl Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-08 Impact factor: 3.240