Advertisement

 

 

In-hospital outcomes comparison of transfemoral vs transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement in propensity-matched cohorts with severe aortic stenosis.

In-hospital outcomes comparison of transfemoral vs transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement in propensity-matched cohorts with severe aortic stenosis.
Author Information (click to view)

Doshi R, Shah P, Meraj PM,


Doshi R, Shah P, Meraj PM, (click to view)

Doshi R, Shah P, Meraj PM,

Advertisement

Clinical cardiology 2018 03 24() doi 10.1002/clc.22866
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the preferred option for high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. The preferred access for TAVR is transfemoral (TF). Alternatives include the transapical (TA), trans-subclavian (TS), and direct aortic (TAo) approaches.

HYPOTHESIS
The TF approach is associated with lower in-hospital outcomes as well as shorter length of stay and lower cost of hospitalization.

METHODS
The National Inpatient Sample database from 2012 through 2014 was used to obtain the TAVR study population. International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes were utilized to identify the 2 groups. In-hospital outcomes were compared in propensity-score-matched (1:3) cohorts, in which we took TA-TAVR as a control.

RESULTS
A total of 8210 (weighted N = 41 050) patients were identified. Of these, 1622 (weighted N = 8110) patients underwent TA-TAVR and 6588 (weighted N = 32 940) patients underwent TF-TAVR. In-hospital mortality was lower with TF-TAVR (4% vs 5.4%; P = 0.0355), along with a shorter length of stay (7.7 vs 9.7 days; P < 0.0001) and lower median hospitalization cost ($64 216 vs $74 735; P < 0.0001). Secondary outcomes of acute renal failure, transfusion, cardiogenic shock, and composite of all complications were lower with TF-TAVR. CONCLUSIONS
TF-TAVR is safer and associated with lower in-hospital outcomes compared with TA-TAVR and should be the preferred approach. As TAVR is gaining popularity in intermediate- and low-risk patients, we must not lose sight of the serious mortality and secondary outcomes associated with TA-TAVR access.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

20 + thirteen =

[ HIDE/SHOW ]