The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2019
Comparative Outcomes of Transcarotid and Transsubclavian Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Amer Mostafa R, Mosleh Wassim, Joshi Saurabh, Mather Jeffery F, El-Mallah Wael, Cheema Mohiuddin, McKay Raymond G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Previous reports described successful use of transcarotid and transsubclavian approaches for the performance of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis who cannot be treated with transfemoral access. The purpose of the present study was to compare these two alternative approaches with respect to safety, efficacy, and procedural efficiency.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all TAVR procedures performed through either a transcarotid or a transsubclavian approach at a single tertiary care medical center between January 2016 and October 2018 was performed. Outcomes are reported in accordance with the Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions.
RESULTS: During the study period, 33 patients had transcarotid TAVR and 38 patients had transsubclavian TAVR. Transcarotid patients were older (mean age, 82.9 ± 7.2 vs 78.1 ± 8.2 years; P = .012), but otherwise the two groups were not significantly different with respect to preoperative characteristics. Valve deployment was similar between the groups (100% vs 97%; P = .348). Procedure time was shorter with the transcarotid approach (110 ± 32 vs 134 ± 45 minutes; P = .014). There was a lower mean fluoroscopy air kerma in the transcarotid group (682.82 ± 713.48 mGy vs 2141 ± 2055 mGy; P < .001), although fluoroscopy dose-area product did not differ between the groups. There was no difference between the groups with respect to in-hospital or 30-day mortality (0% vs 3%; P = .355), stroke (3% vs 8%; P = .393), or vascular complication (3% vs 4%; P = .840).
CONCLUSIONS: The transcarotid and the transsubclavian approaches have similar safety and efficacy outcomes. The transcarotid approach had a shorter procedure duration and a trend toward lower fluoroscopy duration and radiation exposure.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all TAVR procedures performed through either a transcarotid or a transsubclavian approach at a single tertiary care medical center between January 2016 and October 2018 was performed. Outcomes are reported in accordance with the Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions.
RESULTS: During the study period, 33 patients had transcarotid TAVR and 38 patients had transsubclavian TAVR. Transcarotid patients were older (mean age, 82.9 ± 7.2 vs 78.1 ± 8.2 years; P = .012), but otherwise the two groups were not significantly different with respect to preoperative characteristics. Valve deployment was similar between the groups (100% vs 97%; P = .348). Procedure time was shorter with the transcarotid approach (110 ± 32 vs 134 ± 45 minutes; P = .014). There was a lower mean fluoroscopy air kerma in the transcarotid group (682.82 ± 713.48 mGy vs 2141 ± 2055 mGy; P < .001), although fluoroscopy dose-area product did not differ between the groups. There was no difference between the groups with respect to in-hospital or 30-day mortality (0% vs 3%; P = .355), stroke (3% vs 8%; P = .393), or vascular complication (3% vs 4%; P = .840).
CONCLUSIONS: The transcarotid and the transsubclavian approaches have similar safety and efficacy outcomes. The transcarotid approach had a shorter procedure duration and a trend toward lower fluoroscopy duration and radiation exposure.