Premium
Expandable sheath for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Procedural outcomes and complications
Author(s) -
Borz Bogdan,
Durand Eric,
Tron Christophe,
Godin Matthieu,
Canville Alexandre,
Hauville Camille,
Cribier Alain,
Eltchaninoff Hélène
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
catheterization and cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.988
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1522-726X
pISSN - 1522-1946
DOI - 10.1002/ccd.25390
Subject(s) - medicine , valve replacement , femoral artery , surgery , aortic valve , incidence (geometry) , hemodynamics , cardiology , stenosis , physics , optics
Aims It is currently unknown whether the expandable sheath (e‐sheath) for transfemoral Edwards transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has a lower rate of access complications than the 18/19F fixed size sheath (f‐sheath). Our aim was to compare the incidence of procedural complications when using f‐sheath vs. e‐sheath during TAVR. Methods We included 162 consecutive patients, implanted with the Edwards SAPIEN XT valve in our center. Access closure was obtained with the Prostar system in all cases. E‐sheath was used in 80 patients (49%). Results Minimal ilio‐femoral diameter was comparable in e‐sheath and f‐sheath groups: 6.7 (6.1–7.7) vs. 7 (6.2–8) mm, P = 0.25, as was the frequency of peripheral artery disease: 12.5% vs. 13.4%, P = 1.0. VARC major vascular complications rate was similar in the 2 groups: e‐sheath 7 (8.8%) vs. f‐sheath 6 (7.3%), P = 0.74, as was the incidence of minor vascular complications: 8 (10%) vs. 14 (17.1%), P = 0.19, life‐threatening bleeding: 6 (7.5%) vs. 6 (7.3%), P = 0.96, major and minor bleeding and use of covered vascular stents: 9 (11%) vs. 6 (7.5%), P = 0.59. Conclusions The e‐sheath for TAVR with the Edwards valve did not show an advantage over the f‐sheath in reducing vascular and bleeding complications. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.