Surgical cutdown versus percutaneous access in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Insights from the Brazilian TAVI registry.

Abstract

To compare the 1-year outcomes of complete percutaneous approach versus surgical vascular approach for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), among "real-world" patients from the multi-center Brazilian TAVI registry. Vascular access still remains a major challenge for TAVI via transfemoral approach. Vascular access through complete percutaneous approaches or through open surgical vascular techniques seems to be acutely similar. However, the long-term outcomes of both techniques remain poorly described. The study population comprised all patients treated via transfemoral route in the Brazilian TAVI registry, a "real-world", nation-based, multi-center study. Patients were divided according to the initial vascular access approach (percutaneous vs. surgical) and clinically followed-up for 1 year. The primary endpoint was the incidence of combined adverse events all-cause mortality, life-threatening bleeding, and/or major vascular complication at 1 year. A total of 402 patients from 18 centers comprised the study population (percutaneous approach in 182 patients; surgical cutdown approach 220 patients). The incidence of combined adverse events was not different in the percutaneous and the surgical groups at 30 days (17.6% vs. 16.3%; P = 0.8) and at 1 year (primary endpoint) (30.9% vs. 28.8%; P = 0.8). Also, the study groups overall were comparable regarding the incidence of each individual safety adverse events at 30 days and at 1 year. Total percutaneous techniques or surgical cutdown and closure may provide similar safety and effectiveness during the first year of follow-up in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI.