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
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

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