Percutaneous Versus Surgical Cutdown Access for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Focusing on Propensity-Score Matched Studies.

Aortic stenosis Aortic valve replacement Percutaneous Surgical cutdown Transcatheter aortic valve implantation Transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Journal

Heart, lung & circulation
ISSN: 1444-2892
Titre abrégé: Heart Lung Circ
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 100963739

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
22 Aug 2024
Historique:
received: 28 09 2023
revised: 03 05 2024
accepted: 28 05 2024
medline: 24 8 2024
pubmed: 24 8 2024
entrez: 23 8 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a potential alternative for aortic valve surgery to treat aortic valve stenosis. There is limited evidence on the comparative outcomes of TAVI access approaches, specifically the percutaneous (PC) vs surgical cutdown (SC) approach. This study aimed to assess the short-term outcomes in patients undergoing PC vs SC access for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement. PubMed, SCOPUS, and EMBASE were searched to identify relevant studies. The primary outcomes were short-term all-cause mortality, bleeding, vascular complications, and length of in-hospital stay for patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI. Both matched and unmatched observational studies were included and subgroup analyses were performed. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in line with the PRISMA guidelines. Fifteen observational studies involving 7,545 patients (3,033 underwent the PC approach and 2,466 underwent the SC approach) were included. There were no clinically significant between-group differences in short-term mortality, bleeding, length of in-hospital stay, or major vascular complications. However, minor vascular complications were significantly higher in patients who underwent PC-TAVI (p=0.007). In the matched subgroup, all outcomes were comparable between both groups, with the largest difference being observed in minor vascular complications more frequently occurring in the PC group (p=0.08). The evidence shows that outcomes were comparable between the two methods of access, rendering both the PC and SC approaches equally effective for transfemoral TAVI. However, it is worth noting that minor vascular complications were more pronounced in the PC group.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a potential alternative for aortic valve surgery to treat aortic valve stenosis. There is limited evidence on the comparative outcomes of TAVI access approaches, specifically the percutaneous (PC) vs surgical cutdown (SC) approach. This study aimed to assess the short-term outcomes in patients undergoing PC vs SC access for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
METHODS METHODS
PubMed, SCOPUS, and EMBASE were searched to identify relevant studies. The primary outcomes were short-term all-cause mortality, bleeding, vascular complications, and length of in-hospital stay for patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI. Both matched and unmatched observational studies were included and subgroup analyses were performed. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in line with the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS RESULTS
Fifteen observational studies involving 7,545 patients (3,033 underwent the PC approach and 2,466 underwent the SC approach) were included. There were no clinically significant between-group differences in short-term mortality, bleeding, length of in-hospital stay, or major vascular complications. However, minor vascular complications were significantly higher in patients who underwent PC-TAVI (p=0.007). In the matched subgroup, all outcomes were comparable between both groups, with the largest difference being observed in minor vascular complications more frequently occurring in the PC group (p=0.08).
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
The evidence shows that outcomes were comparable between the two methods of access, rendering both the PC and SC approaches equally effective for transfemoral TAVI. However, it is worth noting that minor vascular complications were more pronounced in the PC group.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39179438
pii: S1443-9506(24)00660-7
doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2024.05.011
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ANZSCTS) and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ). All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflict of Interest There is no conflict of interest to declare.

Auteurs

Sania Riaz (S)

Department of Medicine, Allama Iqbal Medical College, Lahore, Pakistan.

Pavan Kumara Kasam Shiva (PK)

Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, Bangalore, India. Electronic address: pks6399@gmail.com.

Jaya Surya Manimekalai Krishnamurthi (JS)

Department of Medicine, Madras Medical College, Chennai, India.

Roopshri Sunilkumar Shah (RS)

Department of Medicine, G.M.E.R.S. Medical College, Gandhinagar, India.

Anjani Mahesh Kumar Cherukuri (AMK)

Department of Medicine, Guntur Medical College, Guntur, India.

Pranav Bhatia (P)

Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, India.

Subiksha Arul (S)

University of Perpetual Help System DALTA Jonelta Foundation School of Medicine, Manila, Philippines.

Monika Multani (M)

Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Punjab, India.

Adishwar Singh (A)

Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India.

Jenisha Suyambu (J)

University of Perpetual Help System DALTA Jonelta Foundation School of Medicine, Manila, Philippines.

Kainat Asif (K)

Department of Medicine, Dr. Ruth K. M. Pfau Civil Hospital Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan.

Mohammed Al-Tawil (M)

Faculty of Medicine, Al-Quds University Jerusalem, Palestine.

Classifications MeSH