Literature DB >> 26639038

Immediate and Intermediate Outcome After Transapical Versus Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Fausto Biancari1, Stefano Rosato2, Paola D'Errigo3, Marco Ranucci4, Francesco Onorati5, Marco Barbanti6, Francesco Santini7, Corrado Tamburino6, Gennaro Santoro8, Claudio Grossi9, Remo Daniel Covello10, Martina Ventura11, Danilo Fusco11, Fulvia Seccareccia3.   

Abstract

A few studies recently reported controversial results with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TA-TAVR), often without adequate adjusted analysis for baseline differences. Data on patients who underwent TF-TAVR and TA-TAVR from the Observational Study of Effectiveness of avR-tavI procedures for severe Aortic stenosis Treatment study were analyzed with propensity score 1-to-1 matching. From a cohort of 1,654 patients (1,419 patients underwent TF-TAVR and 235 patients underwent TA-TAVR), propensity score matching resulted in 199 pairs of patients with similar operative risk (EuroSCORE II: TF-TAVR 8.1 ± 7.1% vs TA-TAVR, 8.4 ± 7.3%, p = 0.713). Thirty-day mortality was 8.0% after TA-TAVR and 4.0% after TF-TAVR (p = 0.102). Postoperative rates of stroke (TA-TAVR, 2.0% vs TF-TAVR 1.0%, p = 0.414), cardiac tamponade (TA-TAVR, 4.1% vs TF-TAVR 1.5%, p = 0.131), permanent pacemaker implantation (TA-TAVR, 8.7% vs TF-TAVR 13.3%, p = 0.414), and infection (TA-TAVR, 6.7% vs TF-TAVR 3.6%, p = 0.180) were similar in the study groups but with an overall trend in favor of TF-TAVR. Higher rates of major vascular damage (7.2% vs 1.0%, p = 0.003) and moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (7.8% vs 5.2%, p = 0.008) were observed after TF-TAVR. On the contrary, TA-TAVR was associated with higher rates of red blood cell transfusion (50.0% vs 30.4%, p = 0.0002) and acute kidney injury (stages 1 to 3: 44.4% vs 21.9%, p <0.0001) compared with TF-TAVR. Three-year survival rate was 69.1% after TF-TAVR and 57.0% after TA-TAVR (p = 0.006), whereas freedom from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events was 61.9% after TF-TAVR and 50.4% after TA-TAVR (p = 0.011). In conclusion, TF-TAVR seems to be associated with significantly higher early and intermediate survival compared with TA-TAVR. The transfemoral approach, whenever feasible, should be considered the route of choice for TAVR.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26639038     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.10.036

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  27 in total

Review 1.  Current rare indications and future directions for implantable loop recorders.

Authors:  Simon Wechselberger; Christopher Piorkowski; Matthias Pohl
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2016-12

2.  Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in nonagenarians: early and intermediate outcome from the OBSERVANT study and meta-analysis of the literature.

Authors:  Fausto Biancari; Paola D'Errigo; Stefano Rosato; Marek Pol; Corrado Tamburino; Marco Ranucci; Fulvia Seccareccia
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 2.037

3.  In-hospital outcomes comparison of transfemoral vs transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement in propensity-matched cohorts with severe aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Rajkumar Doshi; Priyank Shah; Perwaiz M Meraj
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2018-03-24       Impact factor: 2.882

Review 4.  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

5.  Association Between Hospital Volume and 30-Day Readmissions Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

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

Review 6.  Causes and predictors of readmission after transcatheter aortic valve implantation : A meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Yi-Ming Li; Fu-Yang Mei; Yi-Jun Yao; Jia-Yu Tsauo; Yong Peng; Mao Chen
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2019-12-05       Impact factor: 1.443

Review 7.  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 8.  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 9.  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

Review 10.  Should All Low-risk Patients Now Be Considered for TAVR? Operative Risk, Clinical, and Anatomic Considerations.

Authors:  Saima Siddique; Hemal Gada; Mubashir A Mumtaz; Amit N Vora
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2019-11-28       Impact factor: 2.931

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.