Cardiology journal · 2021
Comparison of transcarotid versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis and contraindications for transfemoral access.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Hudziak Damian, Targoński Radosław, Wańha Wojciech, Gocoł Radosław, Hajder Adrianna, Parma Radosław, Figatowski Tomasz, Darocha Tomasz, Deja Marek A, Wojakowski Wojciech, Jagielak Dariusz
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and clinical outcomes of transcarotid (TC) and transapical access (TA) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) patients whom the transfemoral approach (TF) was not feasible.
METHODS: The analysis included consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis treated from 2017 to 2020 with TC-TAVI or TA-TAVI in two high-volume TAVI centers. The approach was selected by multidisciplinary heart teams after analyzing multislice computed tomography of the heart, aorta and peripheral arteries, transthoracic echocardiography and coronary angiography.
RESULTS: One hundred and two patients were treated with alternative TAVI accesses (TC; n = 49 and TA; n = 53) in our centers. The groups were similar regarding age, gender, New York Heart Association class, and echocardiography parameters. Patients treated with TC-TAVI had significantly higher surgical risk. The procedural success rate was similar in both groups (TC-TAVI 98%; TA-TAVI 98.1%; p = 0.95). The rate of Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 defined clinical events was low in both groups. The percentage of new-onset rhythm disturbances and permanent pacemaker implantation was similar in TC and TA TAVI (4.1% vs. 11.3%; p = 0.17 and 10.2% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.39, respectively). In the TA-TAVI group, significantly more cases of pneumonia and blood transfusions were observed (11% vs. 0%; p = 0.01 and 30.2% vs. 12.2%; p = 0.03). The 30-day mortality was similar in TC and TA groups (4.1% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.71, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Both TC and TA TAVI are safe procedures in appropriately selected patients and are associated with a low risk of complications.
METHODS: The analysis included consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis treated from 2017 to 2020 with TC-TAVI or TA-TAVI in two high-volume TAVI centers. The approach was selected by multidisciplinary heart teams after analyzing multislice computed tomography of the heart, aorta and peripheral arteries, transthoracic echocardiography and coronary angiography.
RESULTS: One hundred and two patients were treated with alternative TAVI accesses (TC; n = 49 and TA; n = 53) in our centers. The groups were similar regarding age, gender, New York Heart Association class, and echocardiography parameters. Patients treated with TC-TAVI had significantly higher surgical risk. The procedural success rate was similar in both groups (TC-TAVI 98%; TA-TAVI 98.1%; p = 0.95). The rate of Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 defined clinical events was low in both groups. The percentage of new-onset rhythm disturbances and permanent pacemaker implantation was similar in TC and TA TAVI (4.1% vs. 11.3%; p = 0.17 and 10.2% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.39, respectively). In the TA-TAVI group, significantly more cases of pneumonia and blood transfusions were observed (11% vs. 0%; p = 0.01 and 30.2% vs. 12.2%; p = 0.03). The 30-day mortality was similar in TC and TA groups (4.1% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.71, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Both TC and TA TAVI are safe procedures in appropriately selected patients and are associated with a low risk of complications.