Search

Byline: PMK. Reddy, K. Mahesh Kumar Today, care of patients revolves around medicines that have passed rigorous tests. This integrates the discoveries of basic and applied research in medicine, and [...]

Aim: Transfemoral Trans-catheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TF-TAVR) is a safe and effective therapy compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients across all risk profiles using balloon-expandable valves (BEV) and self-expanding valves (SEV). Our aim was to compare safety and efficacy of BEV vs. SEV in high-risk patients undergoing TF-TAVR., Methods and Results: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, Scopus, and Web of sciences for studies on patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR. Primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes defined by Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 (VARC-2) criteria were also examined. Six studies with 2,935 patients (1,439 to BEV and 1,496 to SEV) were included. BEV was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (2.2% vs. 4.5%; RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31-0.82; p  < 0.006) and cardiovascular mortality [(2.5% vs. 4.3%; RR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.32-0.90; p  = 0.01) at 30 days compared with SEV. Implantation of more than one valve per procedure (0.78% vs. 5.11%; RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.07-0.31; p  < 0.00001), and moderate/severe AR/PVL (2.5% vs. 9.01%; RR: 0.3; 95% CI: 0.17-0.48); p  < 0.00001) were also lower in the BEV arm., Conclusion: BEV TAVR is associated with reduced all-cause mortality (High level of GRADE evidence), cardiovascular mortality (very low level) at 30 days compared with SEV TAVR in high surgical risk patients. Data are necessary to determine if the difference in outcomes persists in longer-term and if the same effects are seen in lower-risk patients., Systematic Review Registration: identifier, CRD42020181190., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2023 Senguttuvan, Bhatt, Balakrishnan, Krishnamoorthy, Goel, Reddy, Subramanian, Claessen, Kumar, Majmundar, Ro, Lerakis, Jayaraj, Kalra, Flather, Dangas and Tang.)

Introduction: Trans-radial approach (TRA) is recommended over trans-femoral approach (TFA) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We intended to study the effect of access on all-cause mortality., Methods and Results: We searched PubMed and EMBASE for randomized studies on patients with ACS undergoing PCI. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30-days. The secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (MACE) as defined by the study, net adverse clinical event (NACE), non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, stent thrombosis, study-defined major bleeding, and minor bleeding, vascular complications, hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, non-access site bleeding, need for transfusion, access site cross-over, contrast volume, procedure duration, and hospital stay duration. We studied 20,122 ACS patients, including 10,037 and 10,085 patients undergoing trans-radial and trans-femoral approaches, respectively. We found mortality benefit in patients with ACS for the trans-radial approach [(1.7% vs. 2.3%; RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.62-0.91; P = 0.004; I2 = 0%). Out of 10,465 patients with STEMI, 5,189 patients had TRA and 5,276 had TFA procedures. A similar benefit was observed in patients with STEMI alone [(2.3% vs. 3.3%; RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.56-0.90; P = 0.004; I2 = 0%). We observed reduced MACE, NACE, major bleeding, vascular complications, and pseudoaneurysms. No difference in re-infarction, stroke, and serious bleeding requiring blood transfusions were noted. We noticed a small decrease in contrast volume(ml) {mean difference (95% CI): -4.6 [-8.5 to -0.7]}, small but significantly increase in procedural time {mean difference (95% CI) 1.2 [0.1 to 2.3]}and fluoroscopy time {mean difference (95% CI) 0.8 [0.3 to1.4] min} in the trans-radial group., Conclusion: TRA has significantly reduced 30-day all-cause mortality among patients undergoing PCI for ACS. TRA should be the preferred vascular access in patients with ACS., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.