Literature DB >> 27701369

Transaxillary versus transaortic approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation with CoreValve Revalving System: insights from multicenter experience.

Claudia Fiorina1, Giuseppe Bruschi2, Luca Testa3, Marco DE Carlo4, Federico DE Marco3, Giuseppe Coletti5, Stefano Bonardelli5, Marianna Adamo5, Salvatore Curello5, Giovanni Scioti4, Paolo Panisi3, Francesco Bedogni3, Anna Sonia Petronio4, Federica Ettori5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: About one-third of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) suffer from severe peripheral artery disease, making the routine femoral approach difficult or impossible. The aim was to compare the transaxillary (TAx) and the transaortic (TAo) route for TAVI with Medtronic CoreValve Revalving System (CRS).
METHODS: Out of 1049 consecutive TAVI with 18F CRS, 242 (23%) were treated in 4 high-volume Italian Centre through TAx (61%) and TAo (39%).
RESULTS: The devices success was similar (P=0.16) with a trend to a lower incidence of significant paravalvular leak (6% vs. 14%, P=0.07) and a significant reduction of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation (13% vs. 34%, P=0.017) in the TAo. However, this route showed a higher incidence of acute kidney injury (P=0.016) and a longer hospital stay after the index procedure (days 10 [8-14] vs. 8 [7-12], P=0.001). By a multivariate analysis the vascular access is an independent predictor for a longer hospital stay (TAo route; OR=0.37, 95% CI: 0.18-0.75; P=0.006) and for PPM implantation (TAx route; OR=3.7, 95% CI: 1.2-10.8; P=0.017).
CONCLUSIONS: Although the higher clinical risk profile of transaortic population, the TAo approach showed an equally high device success with similar 30-day safety and 1year efficacy, compared to TAx route. However, due to non-procedure-specific complications post-TAo TAVI, this route requires a specialized postoperative care and the treatment of patients in highly specialized and experienced centers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27701369     DOI: 10.23736/S0021-9509.16.09566-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino)        ISSN: 0021-9509            Impact factor:   1.888


  4 in total

Review 1.  Transaxillary Versus Transaortic Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in the Treatment of Aortic Stenosis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Ishaque Hameed; Mohammad O Khan; Ibtehaj Ul-Haque; Omer M Siddiqui; Syed A Samad; Shanza Malik; Samar Mahmood
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-04-12

2.  Direct aortic route versus transaxillary route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hsiu-An Lee; I-Li Su; Shao-Wei Chen; Victor Chien-Chia Wu; Dong-Yi Chen; Pao-Hsien Chu; An-Hsun Chou; Yu-Ting Cheng; Pyng-Jing Lin; Feng-Chun Tsai
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 2.984

3.  Transcatheter aortic valve replacement via a transsubclavian approach in a patient with severe aortic stenosis who had previously undergone kidney transplantation: A case report.

Authors:  Seok Oh; Ju Han Kim; Dae Young Hyun; Kyung Hoon Cho; Min Chul Kim; Doo Sun Sim; Young Joon Hong; Youngkeun Ahn; Myung Ho Jeong; Kyo Seon Lee
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 1.889

Review 4.  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
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.