BACKGROUND

Transfemoral percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) is a safe, reproducible and established procedure, mainly performed under local anaesthesia, which is mostly administered and monitored by a dedicated anaesthesia team (regular approach). Our centre has developed a standardized pathway of care, and eligible patients are selected for a minimalist TF-TAVI, entirely managed by operators without the presence of the anaesthesia team in the operating room, like most interventional coronary procedures ("percutaneous coronary intervention-like" approach [PCI approach]).

AIM

To compare the safety and efficacy of TF-TAVI performed with the PCI approach versus the regular approach.

METHODS

The analysis population comprised all patients who underwent TF-TAVI with the PCI or regular approach in our institution from November 2016 to July 2019. The two co-primary endpoints were early safety composite and early efficacy composite at 30days as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2. The PCI (n=137) and Regular (n=221) approaches were compared using the propensity score based method of inverse probability of treatment weighting.

RESULTS

No differences were observed after comparison of TAVI performed with the PCI or regular approach regarding the composite safety endpoint (7.3% vs. 11.3%; odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 1.07; P=0.086) or the composite efficacy endpoint (4.4% vs. 6.3%; odds ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.41 to 1.49; P=0.45).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the efficacy and safety of TF-TAVI entirely managed by a PCI approach for selected patients are not different to those when TF-TAVI is performed with the attendance of a full anaesthesia care team. The PCI approach appears to be a safe and efficient clinical pathway, providing an appropriate and rational utilization of anaesthesiology resources, and could be used for the majority of TF-TAVI procedures.