Direct Comparison of Feasibility and Safety of Transfemoral Versus TransaorticVersus Transapical Transcatheter AorticValve Replacement.

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes among transfemoral (TF), transaortic (TAo), and transapical (TA) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Very few studies have investigated the differences among TF, TAo, and TA TAVR in terms of safety andfeasibility. Between January 2011 and December 2014, 467 consecutive cases of TF TAVR, 289 cases of TAo TAVR, and 42 cases of TA TAVR were analyzed. Baseline characteristics, procedural characteristics, and outcomes were comparedbetween TF and TAo and between TAo and TA approaches. Balloon-expandable prostheses were used in 320 cases of TF TAVR (69%), 209 cases of TAo TAVR (72%), and all cases of TA TAVR. The remaining cases were performed using self-expandable prostheses. Patient age and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score were similar (83.8 years vs. 83.7 years vs. 81.3 years and 6.2% vs. 5.8% vs. 7.1%) among all groups. Although nonsignificant, a trend toward lower 30-day mortality (5% vs. 9%; p= 0.057) was observed with TF TAVR compared with TAo TAVR. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a trend toward a higher 1-year survival rate (log-rank p=0.067) with TF TAVR compared with TAo TAVR. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality between TAo and TA TAVR (9% vs. 14%; p= 0.283). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a trend toward a higher 1-year survival rate (log-rank p= 0.154) with TAo TAVR compared with TA TAVR. Although the 30-day mortality and 1-year survival rates were similar between TF and TAo TAVR patients, a trend in favor of the TF approach was observed. In addition, the TAo approach can be considered as an alternative to the TA approach when the TF approach seems unsuitable.