Home > Journals > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery > Past Issues > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2017 October;58(5) > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2017 October;58(5):747-54

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Cite this article as

THE JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY

A Journal on Cardiac, Vascular and Thoracic Surgery


Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,179


eTOC

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE  CARDIAC SECTION


The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2017 October;58(5):747-54

DOI: 10.23736/S0021-9509.16.09566-5

Copyright © 2016 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Transaxillary versus transaortic approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation with CoreValve Revalving System: insights from multicenter experience

Claudia FIORINA 1 , Giuseppe BRUSCHI 2, Luca TESTA 3, Marco DE CARLO 4, Federico DE MARCO 3, Giuseppe COLETTI 1, Stefano BONARDELLI 1, Marianna ADAMO 1, Salvatore CURELLO 1, Giovanni SCIOTI 4, Paolo PANISI 3, Francesco BEDOGNI 3, Anna Sonia PETRONIO 4, Federica ETTORI 1

1 Spedali Civili Brescia, Brescia, Italy; 2 Niguarda Ca’Granda Hospital, Milan, Italy; 3 IRCCS Policlinico S. Donato, Milan, Italy; 4 Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy


PDF  


BACKGROUND: About one-third of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) suffer from severe peripheral artery disease, making the routine femoral approach difficult or impossible. The aim was to compare the transaxillary (TAx) and the transaortic (TAo) route for TAVI with Medtronic CoreValve Revalving System (CRS).
METHODS: Out of 1049 consecutive TAVI with 18F CRS, 242 (23%) were treated in 4 high-volume Italian Centre through TAx (61%) and TAo (39%).
RESULTS: The devices success was similar (P=0.16) with a trend to a lower incidence of significant paravalvular leak (6% vs. 14%, P=0.07) and a significant reduction of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation (13% vs. 34%, P=0.017) in the TAo. However, this route showed a higher incidence of acute kidney injury (P=0.016) and a longer hospital stay after the index procedure (days 10 [8-14] vs. 8 [7-12], P=0.001). By a multivariate analysis the vascular access is an independent predictor for a longer hospital stay (TAo route; OR=0.37, 95% CI: 0.18-0.75; P=0.006) and for PPM implantation (TAx route; OR=3.7, 95% CI: 1.2-10.8; P=0.017).
CONCLUSIONS: Although the higher clinical risk profile of transaortic population, the TAo approach showed an equally high device success with similar 30-day safety and 1year efficacy, compared to TAx route. However, due to non-procedure-specific complications post-TAo TAVI, this route requires a specialized postoperative care and the treatment of patients in highly specialized and experienced centers.


KEY WORDS: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement - Vascular access devices - Cardiovascular surgical procedures

top of page

Publication History

Issue published online: July 6, 2017
Article first published online: Ocotber 4, 2016
Manuscript accepted: September 30, 2016
Manuscript revised: September 16, 2016
Manuscript received: May 28, 2016

Cite this article as

Fiorina C, Bruschi G, Testa L, De Carlo M, De Marco F, Coletti G, et al. Transaxillary versus transaortic approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation with CoreValve Revalving System: insights from multicenter experience. J Cardiovasc Surg 2017;58:747-54. DOI: 10.23736/S0021-9509.16.09566-5

Corresponding author e-mail

clafiorina@yahoo.it