OBJECTIVES: The transcarotid (TC) approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is potentially an optimal alternative to the transfemoral (TF) approach. Our goal was to compare the safety and efficacy of TC- and TF-TAVI. METHODS: Patients who underwent TF-TAVI or TC-TAVI in the prospectively collected France TAVI registry between January 2013 and December 2015 were compared. Propensity score inverse probability weighting methods were employed to minimize the impact of bias related to non-random treatment assignment. RESULTS: Of the 11 033 patients included in the current study, 10 598 (96%) underwent a TF-TAVI and 435 (4.1%) had a TC-TAVI. Patients in the TC-TAVI access group presented with a higher risk profile but were significantly younger. There were no differences in the perioperative and 2-year mortality rates after adjustment [odds ratio (OR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-1.68; P = 0.99 and hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.7-1.35; P = 0.83). TC-TAVI was associated with a significant risk of stroke (OR 2.42, 95% CI 2.01-2.92; P < 0.001), ST-elevation myocardial infarction (OR 7.32, 95% CI 3.87-13.87; P < 0.001), infections (OR 2.36, 95% CI 2.04-2.71; P < 0.001), bleeding (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.76-2.29; P < 0.001), renal failure (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.90-2.60; P < 0.001) and need for dialysis (OR 2.36, 95% CI 2.01-2.76, P < 0.001). Conversely, TC-TAVI was not confirmed as a risk factor for pacemaker implantation after adjustment (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96-1.15; P < 0.28) and was a protective factor for vascular complications (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.32-0.43; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: TC-TAVI is a safe procedure compared to TF-TAVI, although it holds an increased risk of perioperative complications. It should be considered in case of non-femoral peripheral access as the second access choice, to increase the overall safety of TAVI procedures.

Carotid versus femoral access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A propensity score inverse probability weighting study / T.A. Folliguet, E. Teiger, S. Beurtheret, T. Modine, T. Lefevre, E. Van Belle, M. Gilard, H. Eltchaninoff, R. Koning, B. Iung, J.P. Verhoye, P. Leprince, H. Le Breton, A. Lafont, A. Parolari, F. Barili. - In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY. - ISSN 1010-7940. - 56:6(2019 Dec), pp. 1140-1146.

Carotid versus femoral access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A propensity score inverse probability weighting study

A. Parolari
Penultimo
;
F. Barili
Ultimo
2019-12

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The transcarotid (TC) approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is potentially an optimal alternative to the transfemoral (TF) approach. Our goal was to compare the safety and efficacy of TC- and TF-TAVI. METHODS: Patients who underwent TF-TAVI or TC-TAVI in the prospectively collected France TAVI registry between January 2013 and December 2015 were compared. Propensity score inverse probability weighting methods were employed to minimize the impact of bias related to non-random treatment assignment. RESULTS: Of the 11 033 patients included in the current study, 10 598 (96%) underwent a TF-TAVI and 435 (4.1%) had a TC-TAVI. Patients in the TC-TAVI access group presented with a higher risk profile but were significantly younger. There were no differences in the perioperative and 2-year mortality rates after adjustment [odds ratio (OR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-1.68; P = 0.99 and hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.7-1.35; P = 0.83). TC-TAVI was associated with a significant risk of stroke (OR 2.42, 95% CI 2.01-2.92; P < 0.001), ST-elevation myocardial infarction (OR 7.32, 95% CI 3.87-13.87; P < 0.001), infections (OR 2.36, 95% CI 2.04-2.71; P < 0.001), bleeding (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.76-2.29; P < 0.001), renal failure (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.90-2.60; P < 0.001) and need for dialysis (OR 2.36, 95% CI 2.01-2.76, P < 0.001). Conversely, TC-TAVI was not confirmed as a risk factor for pacemaker implantation after adjustment (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96-1.15; P < 0.28) and was a protective factor for vascular complications (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.32-0.43; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: TC-TAVI is a safe procedure compared to TF-TAVI, although it holds an increased risk of perioperative complications. It should be considered in case of non-femoral peripheral access as the second access choice, to increase the overall safety of TAVI procedures.
Access site; Aortic valve; Carotid; Outcome; Vascular complications; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aortic Valve; Carotid Arteries; Female; Femoral Artery; Humans; Male; Postoperative Complications; Propensity Score; Prospective Studies; Stroke; Treatment Outcome; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
Settore MED/23 - Chirurgia Cardiaca
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
ezz216.pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 490.85 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
490.85 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/2434/813929
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 4
  • Scopus 16
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 16
social impact