Dataset Information

Suprasternal Versus Transfemoral Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From a Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background Suprasternal access is an alternative access strategy for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) where the innominate artery is cannulated from an incision above the sternal notch. To date, suprasternal access has never been compared with transfemoral TAVR. Thus, we sought to assess safety, feasibility, and early clinical outcomes between suprasternal and transfemoral access for patients undergoing TAVR. Methods and Results We evaluated patients from 2 institutional prospective, observational registries containing 1348 patients. Patients were selected in a 2:1 ratio (transfemoral:suprasternal) on the basis of propensity score matching. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes included the incidence of ischemic stroke, major bleeding, vascular injury, left bundle-branch block, and permanent pacemaker implantation at 30-day follow-up. Propensity score matching identified 89 patients undergoing suprasternal TAVR and 159 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR suitable for analysis. There was no significant difference between suprasternal TAVR and transfemoral TAVR with respect to in-hospital mortality (1.1% versus 0.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.80; 95% CI, 0.11-29.06; P=0.680). No patients in either cohort suffered an ischemic stroke. The incidence of major bleeding (2.2% versus 2.5%; OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.16-4.96; P=0.895) and vascular injury (1.1% versus 1.9%; OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.06-5.77; P=0.651) did not differ significantly. The frequency of left bundle-branch block (9.4% versus 15.8%; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.24-1.30; P=0.177) and permanent pacemaker implantation (11.2% versus 5.9%; OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.75-5.45; P=0.169) were not statistically significantly different. Conclusions Suprasternal TAVR was safe and achieved promising short-term clinical outcomes when compared with transfemoral TAVR. Future studies seeking to identify the optimal alternative access site should evaluate suprasternal TAVR access alongside other substitutes for transfemoral TAVR.

SUBMITTER: Brener MI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8475036 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Ultrasound (US) guidance provides the unique opportunity to control the puncture zone of the artery during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement and may decrease major vascular complications (VC) and life-threatening or major bleeding complications. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical impact of US guidance using a propensity score-matched comparison. Methods and Results US guidance was implemented as the default approach for all transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement cases in our institution in June 2013. We defined 3 groups of consecutive patients according to the method of puncture (fluoroscopic/US guidance) and the use of a transcatheter heart valve. Patients in the US-guided second-generation group (Sapien XT [Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA], Corevalve [Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland]) were successfully 1:1 matched with patients in the fluoroscope-guided second-generation group (n=95) with propensity score matching. In a second analysis we described the consecutive patients of the US-guided third-generation group (Evolut-R [Medtronic], Sapien 3 [Edwards Lifesciences], n=308). All vascular and bleeding complications were reduced in the US-guided second-generation group compared with the fluoroscope-guided second-generation group: VC (16.8% versus 6.3%; P=0.023); life-threatening or major bleeding (22.1% versus 6%; P=0.004); and VC related to vascular access (12.6% versus 4.2%; P=0.052). In the US-guided third-generation group the rates of major VC and life-threatening or major bleeding were 3.2% (95% CI, 1.6% to 5.9%) and 3.6% (95% CI, 1.8% to 6.3%). In the overall population (n=546), life-threatening or major bleeding was associated with a 1.7-fold increased mortality risk (P=0.02). Conclusions We demonstrated that US guidance effectively reduced VC and bleeding complications for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement and should be considered the standard puncture method. Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02628509.

Project description:BackgroundRandomized trials support the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of aortic stenosis in high- and intermediate-risk patients, but the generalizability of those results in clinical practice has been challenged.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), particularly in intermediate- and high-risk patients, in a nationally representative real-world cohort.MethodsUsing data from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry and Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database linked to Medicare administrative claims for follow-up, 9,464 propensity-matched intermediate- and high-risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score ≥3%) U.S. patients who underwent commercial TAVR or SAVR were examined. Death, stroke, and days alive and out of the hospital to 1 year were compared, as well as discharge home, with subgroup analyses by surgical risk, demographics, and comorbidities.ResultsIn a propensity-matched cohort (median age 82 years, 48% women, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score 5.6%), TAVR and SAVR patients experienced no difference in 1-year rates of death (17.3% vs. 17.9%; hazard ratio: 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83 to 1.04) and stroke (4.2% vs. 3.3%; hazard ratio: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.47), and no difference was observed in the proportion of days alive and out of the hospital to 1 year (rate ratio: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.02). However, TAVR patients were more likely to be discharged home after treatment (69.9% vs. 41.2%; odds ratio: 3.19; 95% CI: 2.84 to 3.58). Results were consistent across most subgroups, including among intermediate- and high-risk patients.ConclusionsAmong unselected intermediate- and high-risk patients, TAVR and SAVR resulted in similar rates of death, stroke, and DAOH to 1 year, but TAVR patients were more likely to be discharged home.

Project description:BackgroundDiabetes Mellitus (DM) affects a third of patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). DM is a well-known risk factor for cardiac surgery, but its prognostic impact in TAVI patients remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate outcomes in diabetic patients undergoing TAVI.MethodsThis multicentre registry includes data of > 12,000 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI. We assessed baseline patient characteristics and clinical outcomes in patients with DM and without DM. Clinical outcomes were defined by the second valve academic research consortium. Propensity score matching was applied to minimize potential confounding.ResultsOf the 11,440 patients included, 31% (n = 3550) had DM and 69% (n = 7890) did not have DM. Diabetic patients were younger but had an overall worse cardiovascular risk profile than non-diabetic patients. All-cause mortality rates were comparable at 30 days (4.5% vs. 4.9%, RR 0.9, 95%CI 0.8-1.1, p = 0.43) and at one year (17.5% vs. 17.4%, RR 1.0, 95%CI 0.9-1.1, p = 0.86) in the unmatched population. Propensity score matching obtained 3281 patient-pairs. Also in the matched population, mortality rates were comparable at 30 days (4.7% vs. 4.3%, RR 1.1, 95%CI 0.9-1.4, p = 0.38) and one year (17.3% vs. 16.2%, RR 1.1, 95%CI 0.9-1.2, p = 0.37). Other clinical outcomes including stroke, major bleeding, myocardial infarction and permanent pacemaker implantation, were comparable between patients with DM and without DM. Insulin treated diabetics (n = 314) showed a trend to higher mortality compared with non-insulin treated diabetics (n = 701, Hazard Ratio 1.5, 95%CI 0.9-2.3, p = 0.08). EuroSCORE II was the most accurate risk score and underestimated 30-day mortality with an observed-expected ratio of 1.15 in DM patients, STS-PROM overestimated actual mortality with a ratio of 0.77 and Logistic EuroSCORE with 0.35.ConclusionDM was not associated with mortality during the first year after TAVI. DM patients undergoing TAVI had low rates of mortality and other adverse clinical outcomes, comparable to non-DM TAVI patients. Our results underscore the safety of TAVI treatment in DM patients.Trial registrationThe study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03588247).

Project description:BackgroundMorbidly obese (MO) patients are increasingly undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the best therapeutic strategy for these patients remains a matter for debate.AimsOur aim was to compare the periprocedural and mid-term outcomes in MO patients undergoing TAVR versus SAVR.MethodsA multicentre retrospective study including consecutive MO patients (body mass index ≥40 kg/m2, or ≥35 kg/m2 with obesity-related comorbidities) from 18 centres undergoing either TAVR (n=860) or biological SAVR (n=696) for severe AS was performed. Propensity score matching resulted in 362 pairs.ResultsAfter matching, periprocedural complications, including blood transfusion (14.1% versus 48.1%; p<0.001), stage 2-3 acute kidney injury (3.99% versus 10.1%; p=0.002), hospital-acquired pneumonia (1.7% versus 5.8%; p=0.005) and access site infection (1.5% versus 5.5%; p=0.013), were more common in the SAVR group, as was moderate to severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM; 9.9% versus 39.4%; p<0.001). TAVR patients more frequently required permanent pacemaker implantation (14.4% versus 5.6%; p<0.001) and had higher rates of ≥moderate residual aortic regurgitation (3.3% versus 0%; p=0.001). SAVR was an independent predictor of moderate to severe PPM (hazard ratio [HR] 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-2.59; p=0.002), while TAVR was not. In-hospital mortality was not different between groups (3.9% for TAVR versus 6.1% for SAVR; p=0.171). Two-year outcomes (including all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and readmissions) were similar in both groups (log-rank p>0.05 for all comparisons). Predictors of all-cause 2-year mortality differed between the groups; moderate to severe PPM was a predictor following SAVR (HR 1.78, 95% CI: 1.10-2.88; p=0.018) but not following TAVR (p=0.737).ConclusionsSAVR and TAVR offer similar mid-term outcomes in MO patients with severe AS, however, TAVR offers some advantages in terms of periprocedural morbidity.

Dataset Information

Suprasternal Versus Transfemoral Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From a Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets