Literature DB >> 30777318

Comparison of the Transarterial and Transthoracic Approaches in Nontransfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Mathurin Beve1, Vincent Auffret2, Reda Belhaj Soulami3, Jacques Tomasi3, Amedeo Anselmi3, Antoine Roisne4, Dominique Boulmier1, Marc Bedossa1, Guillaume Leurent1, Erwan Donal1, Hervé Le Breton1, Jean-Philippe Verhoye3.   

Abstract

Transfemoral approach stands as the reference access-route for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Nonetheless, alternatives approaches are still needed in a significant proportion of patients. This study aimed at comparing outcomes between transthoracic-approach (transapical or transaortic) and transarterial-approach (transcarotid or subclavian) TAVI. Data from 191 consecutive patients who underwent surgical-approach TAVI from May 2009 to September 2017 were analyzed. Patients were allocated in 2 groups according to the approach. The primary end point was the 30-day composite of death of any cause, need for open surgery, tamponade, stroke, major or life-threatening bleeding, stage 2 or 3 acute kidney injury, coronary obstruction, or major vascular complications. During the study period, 104 patients underwent transthoracic TAVI (transapical: 60.6%, transaortic: 39.4%) whereas 87 patients underwent transarterial TAVI (subclavian: 83.9%, transcarotid: 16.1%). Logistic EuroSCORE I tended to be higher in transthoracic-TAVI recipients. In-hospital and 30-day composite end point rates were 25.0% and 11.5% (p = 0.025), and 26.0% and 14.9% (p = 0.075) for the transthoracic and transarterial cohorts, respectively. Propensity score-adjusted logistic regression demonstrated no significant detrimental association between the 30-day composite end point and transthoracic access (odds ratio 2.12 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 6.42; p = 0.18). Transarterial TAVI was associated with a shorter length of stay (median: 6 vs 7 days, p <0.001). TAVI approach was not an independent predictor of midterm mortality. In conclusion, nontransfemoral transarterial-approach TAVI is safe, feasible, and associated with comparable rates of major perioperative complications, and midterm mortality compared with transthoracic-approach TAVI.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 30777318     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.01.040

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


  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.  Surgical transcatheter valve implantation: The more pathways, the better.

Authors:  Vito D Bruno; Gianni D Angelini
Journal:  J Card Surg       Date:  2022-02-09       Impact factor: 1.778

Review 3.  Advances in technology and techniques for transcatheter aortic valve replacement with concomitant peripheral arterial disease.

Authors:  Chun-Ka Wong; Alston Conrad Ho-On Chiu; Kwong-Yue Eric Chan; Shu-Yue Sze; Frankie Chor-Cheung Tam; Ka-Chun Un; Simon Cheung-Chi Lam; Hung-Fat Tse
Journal:  Front Med Technol       Date:  2022-08-18

4.  Safety and efficacy of transaxillary transcatheter aortic valve replacement using a current-generation balloon-expandable valve.

Authors:  Yong Zhan; Nicholas Toomey; Jamel Ortoleva; Masashi Kawabori; Andrew Weintraub; Frederick Y Chen
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2020-09-10       Impact factor: 1.637

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.