Hyppää sisältöön
    • Suomeksi
    • In English
  • Suomeksi
  • In English
  • Kirjaudu
Näytä aineisto 
  •   Etusivu
  • 3. UTUCris-artikkelit
  • Rinnakkaistallenteet
  • Näytä aineisto
  •   Etusivu
  • 3. UTUCris-artikkelit
  • Rinnakkaistallenteet
  • Näytä aineisto
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Transfemoral versus transcarotid access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Olivier Maud-Emmanuelle; Di Cesare Alessandro; Poncet Anne; Brasselet Camille; Metz Damien; Biancari Fausto; Ruggieri Vito Giovanni; The Reims Heart Team Group

Transfemoral versus transcarotid access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Olivier Maud-Emmanuelle
Di Cesare Alessandro
Poncet Anne
Brasselet Camille
Metz Damien
Biancari Fausto
Ruggieri Vito Giovanni
The Reims Heart Team Group
Katso/Avaa
1-s2.0-S2666250722003728-main.pdf (722.0Kb)
Lataukset: 

Elsevier Inc.
doi:10.1016/j.xjtc.2022.05.019
URI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjtc.2022.05.019
Näytä kaikki kuvailutiedot
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on:
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2022102463081
Tiivistelmä

Objectives: To compare the outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) through a transfemoral (TF) and transcarotid (TC) access at our institution.

Methods: From January 2014 to January 2020, 62 TC-TAVR and 449 TF-TAVR were performed using 2 prosthesis devices (Edwards SAPIEN 3, n = 369; Medtronic Evolut R, n = 142). Propensity score matching was used to adjust for imbalance in the baseline characteristics of the study groups.

Results: Propensity score matching provided 62 matched pairs with comparable operative risk (mean European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II, TC-TAVR 7.6% vs TF-TAVR 6.6%, P = .17). Thirty-day mortality (4.8% vs 3.2%, P = 1.00) and 2-year mortality (11.3% vs 12.9%, P = .64) after TC-TAVR were comparable with TF-TAVR. Strokes were numerically more frequent after TC-TAVR compared with TF-TAVR (3.2% vs 0%, P = .23), but the difference did not reach statistical significance. TF-TAVR was associated with a significantly greater risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (29.0% vs 12.9%, P = .04) compared with TC-TAVR. Other complications were not frequent and were similarly distributed between the matched groups.

Conclusions: TC access for TAVR was associated with satisfactory results compared to the femoral access. TC-TAVR could be considered a valid and safe alternative to TF-TAVR when femoral access is contraindicated. © 2022

Kokoelmat
  • Rinnakkaistallenteet [27094]

Turun yliopiston kirjasto | Turun yliopisto
julkaisut@utu.fi | Tietosuoja | Saavutettavuusseloste
 

 

Tämä kokoelma

JulkaisuajatTekijätNimekkeetAsiasanatTiedekuntaLaitosOppiaineYhteisöt ja kokoelmat

Omat tiedot

Kirjaudu sisäänRekisteröidy

Turun yliopiston kirjasto | Turun yliopisto
julkaisut@utu.fi | Tietosuoja | Saavutettavuusseloste