1. Transcervical approach versus transfemoral approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement
- Author
-
Eric Eeckhout, Stephane Fournier, Matthias Kirsch, Olivier Muller, Christan Roguelov, Anna Giulia Pavon, Henri Lu, and Pierre Monney
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,Time Factors ,Transcatheter aortic ,medicine.medical_treatment ,030204 cardiovascular system & hematology ,Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Valve replacement ,Risk Factors ,Interquartile range ,medicine ,Humans ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Retrospective Studies ,Aortic Valve/surgery ,Aortic Valve Stenosis/diagnostic imaging ,Aortic Valve Stenosis/surgery ,Femoral Artery/diagnostic imaging ,Femoral Artery/surgery ,Heart Valve Prosthesis ,Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/adverse effects ,Treatment Outcome ,Aortic valve stenosis ,Transcatheter aortic valve replacement ,Transcervical ,Transfemoral ,Access route ,business.industry ,Aortic Valve Stenosis ,medicine.disease ,Surgery ,Femoral Artery ,Aortic Valve ,Baseline characteristics ,Procedure Duration ,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,business ,Edwards sapien - Abstract
The transfemoral (TF) approach is the gold-standard access route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Alternative approaches, among which the transcervical (TC) approach, are needed in some patients. We aimed to compare TC-TAVR with TF-TAVR. All patients who underwent TAVR in our institution between 2016 and 2020, using Edwards SAPIEN family balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves, were retrospectively included. Endpoints included 30-day all-cause mortality, procedural complications (according to the VARC-2 criteria), procedure duration, hospital length of stay (LOS) and echocardiographic outcomes. For 30-day all-cause mortality, we furthermore used a Cox proportional-hazards model to adjust for significant between-group differences in baseline characteristics as well as anesthesia modality. TAVR was performed in 306 patients, using a TF approach (n = 255) or a TC approach (n = 51). TC-TAVR was associated with significantly higher STS scores (4.06 [IQR (interquartile range), 2.05, 5.56] vs. 2.97 [IQR, 2.08, 4.88], p < 0.001) and higher prevalence of peripheral artery disease, history of stroke, previous cardiovascular surgery. 30-day mortality (hazard ratio, 0.87 [0.77, 9.77], p = 0.909) and stroke rates (2.0% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.840) were similar, as well as procedural duration (74.0 [53.0, 99.5] vs. 77.0 [58.0, 98.0] minutes, p = 0.370), LOS (6.0 [IQR, 3.0, 8.0] vs. 6.0 [IQR, 4.0, 9.0] days, p = 0.175) and postprocedural mean transvalvular gradient (10.00 [IQR, 8.00, 13.00] vs. 10.00 [IQR, 8.00, 12.00] mmHg, p = 0.724). Despite a higher cardiovascular disease burden in TC patients, TC-TAVR and TF-TAVR yielded similar outcomes. TC-TAVR may be a safe alternative when TF-TAVR is contraindicated.
- Published
- 2021