Literature DB >> 25596868

High-risk patients with inoperative aortic stenosis: use of transapical, transaortic, and transcarotid techniques.

Vinod H Thourani1, Chun Li2, Chandan Devireddy3, Hanna A Jensen2, Patrick Kilgo4, Bradley G Leshnower2, Kreton Mavromatis3, Eric L Sarin2, Tom C Nguyen5, Mihir Kanitkar3, Robert A Guyton2, Peter C Block3, Amanda L Maas2, Amy Simone2, Patricia Keegan3, John Merlino3, James P Stewart3, Stamatios Lerakis3, Vasilis Babaliaros3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient characteristics and procedural outcomes from nontransfemoral (non-TF) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in high-risk or inoperable patients with aortic stenosis have been incompletely reported. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes with non-TF TAVR access techniques including transapical (TA), transaortic (TAo), and transcarotid (TC) TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients undergoing TA, TAo, and TC TAVR from 2007 to 2013 at Emory University. Preoperative risk factors and postoperative outcomes were evaluated using Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions.
RESULTS: Of 469 patients undergoing TAVR during that period at our institution, 139 underwent TA TAVR, 35 had Tao TAVR, and 11 had TC TAVR. Patients undergoing TC TAVR were younger than those undergoing TA TAVR and TAo TAVR (mean ages: TC, 68.9 ± 23.6 years; TA, 81.3 ± 7.7 years; Tao, 83.8 ± 8.3 years; p = 0.017). Most patients undergoing TAo TAVR were women (82.9%), whereas patients undergoing TA TAVR were more likely to be men (62.6%). Slightly more than half of patients undergoing TA TAVR (54.7%) and TC (54.6%) TAVR had undergone previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), whereas no patients underwent TAo TAVR (0%). There was no preoperative difference in ejection fraction, New York Heart Association classification, significant chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality between TA TAVR, Tao TAVR, and TC TAVR, respectively. Average postoperative length of stay was 9 to 11 days and was similar among groups (p = 0.22). There were 13 (9.4%) TA TAVR operative deaths and 4 (11.4%) operative deaths in the TAo TAVR group. There were no deaths in the TC TAVR group.
CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk and inoperable patients who are not candidates for TF TAVR, careful selection of alternative access options can lead to excellent and comparable postoperative outcomes.
Copyright © 2015 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25596868     DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.10.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg        ISSN: 0003-4975            Impact factor:   4.330


  8 in total

Review 1.  Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with a focus on transcarotid: a review of the current literature.

Authors:  Issa Pour-Ghaz; Joel Raja; Mahmoud Bayoumi; Theodore Manolukas; Rami N Khouzam; Uzoma N Ibebuogu
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-09

Review 2.  A Review of Alternative Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Authors:  Michael N Young; Vikas Singh; Rahul Sakhuja
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2018-07-04

Review 3.  Non-transfemoral access sites for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Mariah Madigan; Rony Atoui
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 4.  Access Options for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Unfavorable Aortoiliofemoral Anatomy.

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

5.  The Technological Basis of a Balloon-Expandable TAVR System: Non-occlusive Deployment, Anchorage in the Absence of Calcification and Polymer Leaflets.

Authors:  Harish Appa; Kenneth Park; Deon Bezuidenhout; Braden van Breda; Bruce de Jongh; Jandré de Villiers; Reno Chacko; Jacques Scherman; Chima Ofoegbu; Justiaan Swanevelder; Michael Cousins; Paul Human; Robin Smith; Ferdinand Vogt; Bruno K Podesser; Christoph Schmitz; Lenard Conradi; Hendrik Treede; Holger Schröfel; Theodor Fischlein; Martin Grabenwöger; Xinjin Luo; Heather Coombes; Simon Matskeplishvili; David F Williams; Peter Zilla
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-03-03

Review 6.  Minireview: Transaortic Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Is There Still an Indication?

Authors:  Lukas Stastny; Christoph Krapf; Julia Dumfarth; Simone Gasser; Axel Bauer; Guy Friedrich; Bernhard Metzler; Gudrun Feuchtner; Agnes Mayr; Michael Grimm; Nikolaos Bonaros
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-03-04

7.  Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis in people with low surgical risk.

Authors:  Ahmed A Kolkailah; Rami Doukky; Marc P Pelletier; Annabelle S Volgman; Tsuyoshi Kaneko; Ashraf F Nabhan
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-12-20

8.  Transapical Implantation of a 2nd-Generation JenaValve Device in Patient with Extremely High Surgical Risk.

Authors:  Juan Mieres; Marcelo Menéndez; Carlos Fernández-Pereira; Miguel Rubio; Alfredo E Rodríguez
Journal:  Case Rep Cardiol       Date:  2015-08-04
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.