Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Research and Data Science (CARDS), Providence Heart Institute, Providence St. Joseph Health, , Portland, Oregon.
Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Research and Data Science (CARDS), Providence Heart Institute, Providence St. Joseph Health, , Portland, Oregon.
Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022 Summer;34(2):467-474. doi: 10.1053/j.semtcvs.2021.03.009. Epub 2021 Mar 10.
With continued growth of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), safe alternative access remains important for patients without adequate transfemoral (TF) access. Registry-based outcomes with transcarotid (TC) TAVR are favorable compared to transapical or transaxillary/subclavian, but TC vs TF comparisons have not been made. Our objective was to compare outcomes between TF and TC access routes for TAVR at a high-volume United States center. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated all TF and TC TAVR procedures from June 11, 2014 (first TC case) through December 31, 2019. The primary outcomes were 30-day stroke and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were 1-year stroke, 1-year survival, and 30-day and 1-year life-threatening/major bleeding, vascular complications, and myocardial infarction. Propensity score weighted (PSW) models were used to compare risk-adjusted TF and TC outcomes. Of 1,465 TAVR procedures, 1319 (90%) were TF and 146 (10%) were TC. Procedure time and length of stay did not differ between groups. Unadjusted 30-day stroke (TF = 2.0%, TC = 2.7%, P = 0.536) and mortality (TF = 2.1%, TC = 2.7%, P = 0.629) were similar between groups. PSW 30-day stroke (odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval (CI)) = 0.8 (0.2-2.8)) and mortality (OR (95% CI) = 0.8 (0.2-3.0)) were similar between groups. Unadjusted and PSW 30-day major/life threatening bleeding, major vascular complications, and myocardial infarction did not differ between groups. Survival at one year was 90% (88%-92%) for TF patients and 87% (81%-93%) for TC patients (unadjusted P = 0.28, PSW hazard ratio = 1.0 (0.6-1.7)). Transcarotid TAVR is associated with similar outcomes compared to transfemoral TAVR at an experienced, high-volume center.
随着经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)的持续发展,对于没有足够经股动脉(TF)入路的患者,安全的替代入路仍然很重要。与经心尖(TA)或经腋动脉/锁骨下动脉入路相比,基于注册的经颈动脉(TC)TAVR 结果是有利的,但尚未比较 TC 与 TF 入路。我们的目的是比较在美国一家高容量中心 TC 与 TF 入路行 TAVR 的结果。方法:我们回顾性评估了 2014 年 6 月 11 日(首例 TC 病例)至 2019 年 12 月 31 日期间所有 TF 和 TC TAVR 手术。主要结局是 30 天卒中发生率和 30 天死亡率。次要结局是 1 年卒中发生率、1 年生存率以及 30 天和 1 年危及生命/主要出血发生率、血管并发症和心肌梗死发生率。采用倾向评分加权(PSW)模型比较 TF 和 TC 风险调整后的结果。在 1465 例 TAVR 手术中,1319 例(90%)为 TF 入路,146 例(10%)为 TC 入路。两组之间的手术时间和住院时间无差异。未校正的 30 天卒中发生率(TF=2.0%,TC=2.7%,P=0.536)和死亡率(TF=2.1%,TC=2.7%,P=0.629)在两组之间相似。PSW 30 天卒中(比值比(OR)(95%置信区间(CI))=0.8(0.2-2.8))和死亡率(OR(95% CI)=0.8(0.2-3.0))在两组之间相似。未校正和 PSW 30 天主要/危及生命的出血、主要血管并发症和心肌梗死发生率在两组之间无差异。TF 患者一年生存率为 90%(88%-92%),TC 患者为 87%(81%-93%)(未校正 P=0.28,PSW 风险比=1.0(0.6-1.7))。在经验丰富、高容量中心,TC 与 TF 行 TAVR 的结果相似。