z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Comparison of Transfemoral Versus Transradial Secondary Access in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
Author(s) -
Lucía Junquera,
Marina Ureña,
Azeem Latib,
Antonio J. Muñoz-García,
Luis NombelaFranco,
Benjamin Faurie,
Gabriela Veiga Fernández,
Alberto Alperi,
Vicenç Serra,
Ander Regueiro,
Quentin Fischer,
Dominique Himbert,
Antonio Mangieri,
Antonio Colombo,
Érika Muñoz-García,
Rafael Vera-Urquiza,
Pilar JiménezQuevedo,
José María de la Torre,
Isaac Pascual,
Bruno García del Blanco,
Manel Sabaté,
Siamak Mohammadi,
Afonso B. FreitasFerraz,
Leonardo Guimarães,
Thomas Couture,
Mélanie Côté,
Josep RodésCabau
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
circulation cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.621
H-Index - 95
eISSN - 1941-7632
pISSN - 1941-7640
DOI - 10.1161/circinterventions.119.008609
Subject(s) - medicine , valve replacement , population , stroke (engine) , surgery , propensity score matching , cardiology , stenosis , mechanical engineering , environmental health , engineering
Background: Transfemoral approach has been commonly used as secondary access in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Scarce data exist on the use and potential clinical benefits of the transradial approach as secondary access during TAVR procedures. The objective of the study is to determine the occurrence of vascular complications (VC) and clinical outcomes according to secondary access (transfemoral versus transradial) in patients undergoing TAVR. Methods: This was a multicenter study including 4949 patients who underwent TAVR (mean age, 81±8 years, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, 4.9 [3.3–7.5]). Transfemoral and transradial approaches were used as secondary access in 4016 (81.1%) and 933 (18.9%) patients, respectively. The 30-day clinical events (vascular and bleeding complications, stroke, acute kidney injury, and mortality) were evaluated and defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. Clinical outcomes were analyzed according to the secondary access (transfemoral versus transradial) in the overall population and in a propensity score-matched population involving 2978 transfemoral and 928 transradial patients. Results: Related-access VC occurred in 834 (16.9%) patients (major VC, 5.7%) and were related to the secondary access in 172 (3.5%) patients (major VC, 1.3%). The rate of VC related to the secondary access was higher in the transfemoral group (VC, 4.1% versus 0.9%,P <0.001; major VC, 1.6% versus 0%,P <0.001). In the propensity score-matched population, VC related to the secondary access remained higher in the transfemoral group (4.7% versus 0.9%,P <0.001; major VC, 1.8% versus 0%,P <0.001), which also exhibited a higher rate of major/life-threatening bleeding events (1.0% versus 0%,P <0.001). Significant differences between secondary access groups were observed regarding the rates of 30-day stroke (transfemoral: 3.1%, transradial: 1.6%;P =0.043), acute kidney injury (transfemoral: 9.9%, transradial: 5.7%;P <0.001), and mortality (transfemoral: 4.0%, transradial: 2.4%,P =0.047).Conclusions: The use of transradial approach as secondary access in TAVR procedures was associated with a significant reduction in vascular and bleeding complications and improved 30-day outcomes. Future randomized studies are warranted.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom