Transfemoral versus transcarotid access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

dc.contributor.authorOlivier Maud-Emmanuelle
dc.contributor.authorDi Cesare Alessandro
dc.contributor.authorPoncet Anne
dc.contributor.authorBrasselet Camille
dc.contributor.authorMetz Damien
dc.contributor.authorBiancari Fausto
dc.contributor.authorRuggieri Vito Giovanni
dc.contributor.authorThe Reims Heart Team Group
dc.contributor.organizationfi=kirurgia|en=Surgery|
dc.contributor.organizationfi=tyks, vsshp|en=tyks, varha|
dc.contributor.organization-code2607309
dc.converis.publication-id176604281
dc.converis.urlhttps://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/Publication/176604281
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-28T13:07:20Z
dc.date.available2022-10-28T13:07:20Z
dc.description.abstract<p>Objectives: To compare the outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) through a transfemoral (TF) and transcarotid (TC) access at our institution. <br></p><p>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. <br></p><p>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. <br></p><p>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<br></p>
dc.format.pagerange46
dc.format.pagerange53
dc.identifier.jour-issn2666-2507
dc.identifier.olddbid179847
dc.identifier.oldhandle10024/162941
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.utupub.fi/handle/11111/37704
dc.identifier.urlhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjtc.2022.05.019
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi-fe2022102463081
dc.language.isoen
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorBiancari, Fausto
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorDataimport, tyks, vsshp
dc.okm.discipline3121 Internal medicineen_GB
dc.okm.discipline3126 Surgery, anesthesiology, intensive care, radiologyen_GB
dc.okm.discipline3121 Sisätauditfi_FI
dc.okm.discipline3126 Kirurgia, anestesiologia, tehohoito, radiologiafi_FI
dc.okm.internationalcopublicationinternational co-publication
dc.okm.internationalityInternational publication
dc.okm.typeA1 ScientificArticle
dc.publisherElsevier Inc.
dc.publisher.countryUnited Statesen_GB
dc.publisher.countryYhdysvallat (USA)fi_FI
dc.publisher.country-codeUS
dc.relation.doi10.1016/j.xjtc.2022.05.019
dc.relation.ispartofjournalJTCVS Techniques
dc.relation.volume15
dc.source.identifierhttps://www.utupub.fi/handle/10024/162941
dc.titleTransfemoral versus transcarotid access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement
dc.year.issued2022

Tiedostot

Näytetään 1 - 1 / 1
Ladataan...
Name:
1-s2.0-S2666250722003728-main.pdf
Size:
722.01 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format