The Journal of invasive cardiology · 2021
Comparison of a Single Versus Double Perclose Technique for Percutaneous Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Phan Derek Q, Qattan Marwan, Lee Ming-Sum, Zadegan Ray, Mansukhani Prakash, Brar Somjot S, Aharonian Vicken, Moore Naing
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The optimal strategy for arterial closure in percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) remains under debate.
METHODS: Single-center, prospective, observational study of consecutive patients undergoing TF-TAVR between March 2018 and December 2019 who underwent closure with an upfront single vs double Perclose device. Device success, access-site vascular, and bleeding complications were defined according to the Valvular Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 criteria. Inverse-probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline characteristics between groups.
RESULTS: A total of 241 patients (mean age, 81.4 ± 8.5 years, 47% women) were included, of which 127 underwent an upfront single-Perclose (SP) strategy and 114 underwent an upfront double-Perclose (DP) strategy. Fifty-six percent of patients were treated with a CoreValve (Medtronic). The SP group was less likely to be on dialysis and on aspirin, but were more likely to receive a CoreValve, with larger valve sizes and larger delivery sheaths. Baseline characteristics were well balanced after IPTW adjustment. Device success rate was comparable between groups (96% in the SP group vs 93% in the DP group; P=.39). The SP technique was associated with fewer vascular complications (8.7% in the SP group vs 26.3% in the DP group; P<.01; IPTW relative risk [RR], 0.34; 95% confidence Interval [CI], 0.16-0.71) and bleeding complications (2.4% in the SP group vs 12.3% in the DP group; P<.01; IPTW RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.76) compared with the DP technique. There were no differences in 30-day mortality.
CONCLUSION: An upfront SP technique is equally efficacious and not associated with increased vascular and bleeding complications compared with an upfront DP technique in patients undergoing percutaneous TF-TAVR.
METHODS: Single-center, prospective, observational study of consecutive patients undergoing TF-TAVR between March 2018 and December 2019 who underwent closure with an upfront single vs double Perclose device. Device success, access-site vascular, and bleeding complications were defined according to the Valvular Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 criteria. Inverse-probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline characteristics between groups.
RESULTS: A total of 241 patients (mean age, 81.4 ± 8.5 years, 47% women) were included, of which 127 underwent an upfront single-Perclose (SP) strategy and 114 underwent an upfront double-Perclose (DP) strategy. Fifty-six percent of patients were treated with a CoreValve (Medtronic). The SP group was less likely to be on dialysis and on aspirin, but were more likely to receive a CoreValve, with larger valve sizes and larger delivery sheaths. Baseline characteristics were well balanced after IPTW adjustment. Device success rate was comparable between groups (96% in the SP group vs 93% in the DP group; P=.39). The SP technique was associated with fewer vascular complications (8.7% in the SP group vs 26.3% in the DP group; P<.01; IPTW relative risk [RR], 0.34; 95% confidence Interval [CI], 0.16-0.71) and bleeding complications (2.4% in the SP group vs 12.3% in the DP group; P<.01; IPTW RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.76) compared with the DP technique. There were no differences in 30-day mortality.
CONCLUSION: An upfront SP technique is equally efficacious and not associated with increased vascular and bleeding complications compared with an upfront DP technique in patients undergoing percutaneous TF-TAVR.