University of Rennes 1, Cardiology and Vascular Diseases Department, Pontchaillou University Hospital, Signal and Image Treatment laboratory (LTSI), National Institute of Health and Medical Research U1099, Rennes, France.
University of Rennes 1, Cardiology and Vascular Diseases Department, Pontchaillou University Hospital, Signal and Image Treatment laboratory (LTSI), National Institute of Health and Medical Research U1099, Rennes, France.
Am J Cardiol. 2019 May 1;123(9):1501-1509. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.01.040. Epub 2019 Feb 8.
Transfemoral approach stands as the reference access-route for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Nonetheless, alternatives approaches are still needed in a significant proportion of patients. This study aimed at comparing outcomes between transthoracic-approach (transapical or transaortic) and transarterial-approach (transcarotid or subclavian) TAVI. Data from 191 consecutive patients who underwent surgical-approach TAVI from May 2009 to September 2017 were analyzed. Patients were allocated in 2 groups according to the approach. The primary end point was the 30-day composite of death of any cause, need for open surgery, tamponade, stroke, major or life-threatening bleeding, stage 2 or 3 acute kidney injury, coronary obstruction, or major vascular complications. During the study period, 104 patients underwent transthoracic TAVI (transapical: 60.6%, transaortic: 39.4%) whereas 87 patients underwent transarterial TAVI (subclavian: 83.9%, transcarotid: 16.1%). Logistic EuroSCORE I tended to be higher in transthoracic-TAVI recipients. In-hospital and 30-day composite end point rates were 25.0% and 11.5% (p = 0.025), and 26.0% and 14.9% (p = 0.075) for the transthoracic and transarterial cohorts, respectively. Propensity score-adjusted logistic regression demonstrated no significant detrimental association between the 30-day composite end point and transthoracic access (odds ratio 2.12 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 6.42; p = 0.18). Transarterial TAVI was associated with a shorter length of stay (median: 6 vs 7 days, p <0.001). TAVI approach was not an independent predictor of midterm mortality. In conclusion, nontransfemoral transarterial-approach TAVI is safe, feasible, and associated with comparable rates of major perioperative complications, and midterm mortality compared with transthoracic-approach TAVI.
经股动脉入路是经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)的参考入路。然而,在相当一部分患者中,仍需要其他替代方法。本研究旨在比较经胸入路(经心尖或经主动脉)和经动脉入路(经颈动脉或锁骨下动脉)TAVI 的结果。分析了 2009 年 5 月至 2017 年 9 月期间接受手术入路 TAVI 的 191 例连续患者的数据。根据入路将患者分为两组。主要终点是 30 天内任何原因导致的死亡、需要开放手术、心脏压塞、中风、大出血或危及生命的出血、2 或 3 级急性肾损伤、冠状动脉阻塞或主要血管并发症的复合终点。研究期间,104 例患者接受了经胸 TAVI(经心尖:60.6%,经主动脉:39.4%),87 例患者接受了经动脉 TAVI(锁骨下动脉:83.9%,经颈动脉:16.1%)。经胸 TAVI 患者的逻辑 EuroSCORE I 倾向于更高。住院期间和 30 天复合终点发生率分别为 25.0%和 11.5%(p=0.025),经胸和经动脉组分别为 26.0%和 14.9%(p=0.075)。倾向评分调整后的逻辑回归表明,30 天复合终点与经胸入路之间没有显著的不利关联(比值比 2.12,95%置信区间 0.70 至 6.42;p=0.18)。经动脉 TAVI 与较短的住院时间相关(中位数:6 天 vs 7 天,p<0.001)。TAVI 入路不是中期死亡率的独立预测因素。总之,非经股动脉经动脉入路 TAVI 是安全、可行的,与经胸入路 TAVI 相比,主要围手术期并发症和中期死亡率相当。