Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of ProGlide Versus Prostar XL Vascular Closure Devices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The RISPEVA Registry.

ABSTRACT: Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) requires large-bore access, which is associated with bleeding and vascular complications. ProGlide and Prostar XL are vascular closure devices widely used in clinical practice, but their comparative efficacy and safety in TAVR is a subject of debate, owing to conflicting results among published studies. We aimed to compare outcomes with Proglide versus Prostar XL vascular closure devices after TAVR. Methods and Results This large-scale analysis was conducted using RISPEVA, a multicenter national prospective database of patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR treated with ProGlide versus Prostar XL vascular closure devices. Both multivariate and propensity score adjustments were performed. A total of 2583 patients were selected. Among them, 1361 received ProGlide and 1222 Prostar XL. The predefined primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, bleeding, and vascular complications assessed at 30 days and 1-year follow-up. At 30 days, there was a significantly greater reduction of the primary end point with ProGlide versus Prostar XL (13.8% versus 20.5%, respectively; multivariate adjusted odds ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65-0.99]; P=0.043), driven by a reduction of bleeding complications (9.1% versus 11.7%, respectively; multivariate adjusted odds ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.58-0.98]; P=0.046). Propensity score analysis confirmed the significant reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events and bleeding risk with ProGlide. No significant differences in the primary end point were found between the 2 vascular closure devices at 1 year of follow-up (multivariate adjusted hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.72-1.10]; P=0.902). Comparable results were obtained by propensity score analysis. During the procedure, compared with Prostar XL, ProGlide yielded significant higher device success (99.2% versus 97.5%, respectively; P=0.001). Conclusions ProGlide has superior efficacy as compared with Prostar XL in TAVR procedures and is associated with a greater reduction of composite adverse events at short-term, driven by lower bleeding complications. Registration Information URL: clini?caltr?ials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02713932.

SUBMITTER: Berti S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7763424 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and Safety of ProGlide Versus Prostar XL Vascular Closure Devices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The RISPEVA Registry.

Berti Sergio S Bedogni Francesco F Giordano Arturo A Petronio Anna S AS Iadanza Alessandro A Bartorelli Antonio L AL Reimers Bernard B Spaccarotella Carmen C Trani Carlo C Attisano Tiziana T Marella Cenname Angela A Sardella Gennaro G Bonmassari Roberto R Medda Massimo M Tomai Fabrizio F Tarantini Giuseppe G Navarese Eliano P EP

Journal of the American Heart Association 20201024 21

Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) requires large-bore access, which is associated with bleeding and vascular complications. ProGlide and Prostar XL are vascular closure devices widely used in clinical practice, but their comparative efficacy and safety in TAVR is a subject of debate, owing to conflicting results among published studies. We aimed to compare outcomes with Proglide versus Prostar XL vascular closure devices after TAVR. Methods and Results This large-scale ana ...[more]

PMID: 33103545

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe past decade has witnessed an ever-increasing momentum of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and a subsequent paradigm shift in the contemporary management of severe aortic stenosis (AS). We conducted a multi-centric TAVR registry based on Chinese patients (the China Aortic valve tRanscatheter Replacement registrY [CARRY]) to delineate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of Chinese patients who underwent TAVR and compare the results between different valve types in different Chinese regions.MethodsCARRY is an all-comer registry of aortic valve disease patients undergoing TAVR across China and was designed as an observational study that retrospectively included all TAVR patients at each participating site. Seven hospitals in China participated in the CARRY, and 1204 patients from April 2012 to November 2020 were included. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-squared test, and continuous variables were analyzed using a t test or analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. The Kaplan-Meier curve was used to estimate the risk of adverse events during follow-up.ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 73.8 ± 6.5 years and 57.2% were male. The median Society of Thoracic Surgeon-Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 6.0 (3.7-8.9). Regarding the aortic valve, the proportion of bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) was 48.5%. During the hospital stay, the stroke rate was 0.7%, and the incidence of high-degree atrioventricular block indicating permanent pacemaker implantation was 11.0%. The in-hospital all-cause mortality rate was 2.2%. After 1 year, the overall mortality rate was 4.5%. Compared to patients with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV), those with BAV had similar in-hospital complication rates, but a lower incidence of in-hospital mortality (1.4% vs. 3.3%) and 1 year mortality (2.3% vs. 5.8%).ConclusionsTAVR candidates in China were younger, higher proportion of BAV, and had lower rates of post-procedural complications and mortality than other international all-comer registries. Given the use of early generation valves in the majority of the population, patients with BAV had similar rates of complications, but lower mortality than those with TAV. These findings further propel the extension of TAVR in low-risk patients.Trial registrationhttps://www.chictr.org.cn/ (No. ChiCTR2000038526).

Project description:BackgroundThe MANTA vascular closure device (VCD) is dedicated to large bore access closure and associated with favorable results in selected study populations. Anatomical predictors for access site complications are lacking.AimTo evaluate MANTA in a real-world population and identify predictors for vascular complications.MethodsAll patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) between January 2016 and May 2020 with MANTA closure were included. Baseline characteristics were collected, pre-procedural computed tomography and post-deployment femoral angiograms were analyzed for anatomical differences. The primary endpoint was a composite of access site related major and minor vascular complications at 30 days follow-up according to the VARC-2 definitions. Secondary endpoints included bleeding, time to hemostasis, procedural length and incomplete arteriotomy closure or arterial occlusion by angiography. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare all-cause mortality for patients with and without an access site complication.ResultsThe 512 patients underwent TAVR with MANTA access closure. Median age was 80 (IQR 75-85), 53% was male, median BMI was 26.4 kg/m2 (IQR 23.4-29.7). Access site related major- or minor vascular complication occurred in 20 (4%) and 23 (4%) of patients respectively. Median time to hemostasis was 42 s (IQR 28-98). Post deployment angiogram showed an occlusion in 24 patients (5%), incomplete closure in 60 patients (12%) or both in three patients (1%). Of these 87 patients, 36 (41%) had a vascular complication. Femoral artery diameter (OR 0.70 [0.53-0.93]), low- (OR 3.47 [1.21-10.00]) and high (OR 2.43 [1.16-5.10]) arteriotomies were independent predictors for vascular complications.ConclusionIn this contemporary TAVR population, access-site related complications occurred in 8% of patients and were mainly due to percutaneous closure device failure. Small artery diameter and off-target punctures were independent predictors.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Transcaval access may enable fully percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) without the hazards and discomfort of transthoracic (transapical or transaortic) access. OBJECTIVES:The authors performed a prospective, independently adjudicated, multicenter, single-arm trial of transcaval access for TAVR in patients who were ineligible for femoral artery access and had high or prohibitive risk of complications from transthoracic access. METHODS:A total of 100 patients underwent attempted percutaneous transcaval access to the abdominal aorta by electrifying a caval guidewire and advancing it into a pre-positioned aortic snare. After exchanging for a rigid guidewire, conventional TAVR was performed through transcaval introducer sheaths. Transcaval access ports were closed with nitinol cardiac occluders. A core laboratory analyzed pre-discharge and 30-day abdominal computed tomograms. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was 9.6 ± 6.3%. RESULTS:Transcaval access was successful in 99 of 100 patients. Device success (access and closure with a nitinol cardiac occluder without death or emergency surgical rescue) occurred 98 of 99 patients; 1 subject had closure with a covered stent. Inpatient survival was 96%, and 30-day survival was 92%. Second Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC-2) life-threatening bleeding and modified VARC-2 major vascular complications possibly related to transcaval access were 7% and 13%, respectively. Median length of stay was 4 days (range 2 to 6 days). There were no vascular complications after discharge. CONCLUSIONS:Transcaval access enabled TAVR in patients who were not good candidates for transthoracic access. Bleeding and vascular complications, using permeable nitinol cardiac occluders to close the access ports, were common but acceptable in this high-risk cohort. Transcaval access should be investigated in patients who are eligible for transthoracic access. Purpose-built closure devices are in development that may simplify the procedure and reduce bleeding. (Transcaval Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in People With No Good Options for Aortic Access; NCT02280824).

Project description:BackgroundStroke remains a devastating complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), which has persisted despite refinements in technique and increased operator experience. While cerebral embolic protection devices (EPDs) have been developed to mitigate this risk, data regarding their impact on stroke and other outcomes after TAVR are limited.MethodsWe performed an observational study using data from the Society for Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. Patients were included if they underwent elective or urgent transfemoral TAVR between January 2018 and December 2019. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke. To adjust for confounding, the association between EPD use and clinical outcomes was evaluated using instrumental variable analysis, a technique designed to support causal inference from observational data, with site-level preference for EPD use within the same quarter of the procedure as the instrument. We also performed a propensity score-based secondary analysis using overlap weights.ResultsOur analytic sample included 123 186 patients from 599 sites. The use of EPD during TAVR increased over time, reaching 28% of sites and 13% of TAVR procedures by December 2019. There was wide variation in EPD use across hospitals, with 8% of sites performing >50% of TAVR procedures with an EPD and 72% performing no procedures with an EPD in the last quarter of 2019. In our primary analysis using the instrumental variable model, there was no association between EPD use and in-hospital stroke (adjusted relative risk, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.68-1.13]; absolute risk difference, -0.15% [95% CI, -0.49 to 0.20]). However, in our secondary analysis using the propensity score-based model, EPD use was associated with 18% lower odds of in-hospital stroke (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.69-0.97]; absolute risk difference, -0.28% [95% CI, -0.52 to -0.03]). Results were generally consistent across the secondary end points, as well as subgroup analyses.ConclusionsIn this nationally representative observational study, we did not find an association between EPD use for TAVR and in-hospital stroke in our primary instrumental variable analysis, and found only a modestly lower risk of in-hospital stroke in our secondary propensity-weighted analysis. These findings provide a strong basis for large-scale randomized, controlled trials to test whether EPDs provide meaningful clinical benefit for patients undergoing TAVR.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of ProGlide Versus Prostar XL Vascular Closure Devices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The RISPEVA Registry.

Publications

Efficacy and Safety of ProGlide Versus Prostar XL Vascular Closure Devices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The RISPEVA Registry.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets