Results of transcarotid compared with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Aortic Valve Stenosis
/ epidemiology
Canada
/ epidemiology
Carotid Arteries
/ surgery
Catheterization, Peripheral
/ methods
Female
Femoral Artery
/ surgery
Hemorrhage
/ diagnosis
Hospital Mortality
Humans
Male
Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care
Postoperative Complications
/ diagnosis
Risk Adjustment
/ methods
Risk Factors
Stroke
/ diagnosis
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
/ adverse effects
aortic valve
transcarotid
transcatheter valve replacement
transfemoral
Journal
The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery
ISSN: 1097-685X
Titre abrégé: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0376343
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2022
01 2022
Historique:
received:
09
09
2019
revised:
20
03
2020
accepted:
21
03
2020
pubmed:
11
5
2020
medline:
27
1
2022
entrez:
11
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The femoral artery is the preferred vascular access to perform transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, the optimal alternative approach has not been elucidated in patients who are not candidates for a transfemoral (TF) access. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of TAVR performed by the transcarotid (TC) compared with the TF approach. This was a single-center study that included 526 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR between 2015 and 2019. TC-TAVR was performed in 127 and TF-TAVR in 399 patients. Postprocedural and 30-day clinical events were evaluated according to main access (TC vs TF) using a multivariate logistic regression model. One-year survival and freedom from neurological events were also evaluated. The prevalence of diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, and peripheral vascular disease was higher in the TC group. In-hospital mortality (3.2% vs 2.0%, adjusted odds ratio, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-7.15; P = .39), and 30-day stroke (2.4% vs 3.3%; odds ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-3.41; P = .81), were similar between groups as were other outcomes: procedural success (98.4% vs 97.0%; P = .52), 30-day cumulative mortality (4.8% vs 2.8%; P = .26), major vascular complication (2.4% vs 4.5%; P = .25), and major/life-threatening bleeding (4.7% vs 6.0%; P = .41) (TC vs TF, respectively). No differences were found among groups regarding survival or neurological events at 1-year follow-up. The TC approach is a safe alternate-access strategy for TAVR, and is associated with similar outcomes compared with TF-TAVR, despite a higher disease burden in TC patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32387164
pii: S0022-5223(20)30790-X
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.03.091
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
69-77Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.