Comparison of outcomes of trans-subclavian versus trans-apical approaches in transcatheter aortic valve implantation

1Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Many patients are unsuitable for conventional femoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) but there is limited evidence as to which alternative approach has the best outcomes. We compared clinical outcomes in patients undergoing trans-subclavian (TS) or trans-apical (TA) TAVI. Methods: This was a national retrospective observational study of patients undergoing surgical TAVI in Scotland between January 2013 and March 2020. The pre-operative patient characteristics, intraoperative details and post-operative outcomes were compared between TS and TA cohorts using data from the National Institute of Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) registry. Results: Among 1055 patients who underwent TAVI, TS or TA access was used in 50 (4.7%) and 90 (8.5%) patients respectively. Self-expanding Medtronic Evolut R valves were used in 84% of TS procedures, while balloon-expandable Edwards SAPIEN valves were used in all TA procedures. The TS group had a lower mean logistic EuroSCORE than the TA group (27.31 ± 19.44% vs 34.92 ± 19.61% p = 0.029). The TS approach was associated with a higher incidence of moderate postprocedural aortic regurgitation (12.5% vs 2.4%, p = 0.025). There was no significant difference in 30-day, 1-year or overall all-cause mortality. Conclusions: Both trans-subclavian and trans-apical access are viable approaches for patients requiring non-transfemoral TAVI. Differences in peri-procedural indices reflect the disparate patient populations and factors governing prosthesis choice, and short- and long-term mortality was similar.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Tomala, O., Zamvar, V., Bing, R., Pessotto, R., & Cruden, N. (2022). Comparison of outcomes of trans-subclavian versus trans-apical approaches in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-022-01929-0

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free