Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is indicated in high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. We compared the clinical outcome of 180 consecutive patients who underwent transapical (TA) and transfemoral (TF) procedures in a single centre.
Methods
Ninety consecutive TA (TA-group) and 90 consecutive TF (TF-group) were performed from 2009 to 2014. Clinical variables were prospectively collected and retrospectively analysed for hospital outcomes and to identify risk factors for hospital mortality, vascular complications and stroke.
Results
Mean age was 80 ± 8.5 and 83 ± 8.4 years, in the TA and TF-group, respectively. TA-group presented higher prevalence of comorbidities: more vascular disease (79% vs 22%, p < 0.001), chronic pulmonary disease (32% vs 10%, p < 0.001), previous vascular surgery (14% vs 4%, p = 0.039), coronary disease (60% vs 40%, p = 0.007), and previous cardiac surgery (28% vs 17%, p = 0.073). Logistic Euroscore was 36 ± 15% in the TA-group and 25 ± 14% in the TF-group (p < 0.001), but hospital mortality was similar (TA:9%, TF:10%, p = 0.799). Access-related vascular complications occurred more often in transfemoral patients (TA:3%, TF:11%, p = 0.081) while major bleeding (TA:3%, TF:4%, p = 1) and stroke (TA:2%, TF:3%, p = 1) were equally distributed. Postoperative renal failure and dialysis were associated with impaired neurological outcome (p = 0.035 and p = 0.020, respectively). Mild to severe paravalvular leak was more prevalent in transfemoral patients (TA:5%, TF:25%, p < 0.001).
Conclusions
In our experience, the TA and TF-group presented different risk profiles but mortality rate and adverse neurological outcome had a similar incidence. The transfemoral approach carried more vascular complications and paravalvular leaks but last-generation devices will improve this outcome.
Abkürzungen
3D–CT scan
Three-dimensional Computed Tomography scan
COPD
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
LVEF
Left ventricular ejection fraction
SAVR
Standard aortic valve replacement
TA
Transapical
TAVI
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation
TF
Transfemoral
VARC
Valve Academic Research Consortium
Background
Aortic stenosis is the most common acquired heart valve disease in the adult and the surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) remains the treatment of choice with good outcomes and long-term results [1‐4]. However, patients with comorbidities carry a higher surgical risk and, therefore, they might benefit from recently developed minimally invasive techniques and technologies. Since 2007, the transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a widely-accepted alternative to open heart surgery in patients with high-risk profiles and, so far, more than 200′000 procedures have already been performed worldwide, mostly with the CoreValve™ (Medronic, Minneapolis, MN) and the SAPIEN™ (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) valve families with good hospital and mid-term results [5‐8]. The two arms of the PARTNER trial have proven the safety and efficacy of TAVI in inoperable and high-risk patients with superior results when compared to medical treatment and non-inferior results when compared to standard surgery [7, 8]. Moreover, recently published studies have also shown good valve hemodynamic parameters in early and mid-term follow-ups and in intermediate-risk patients [9‐15].
Alternative access routes have been explored but the two most popular are still the transapical (TA) and the transfemoral (TF): however, patient attribution to these accesses is still questionable in absence of a severe peripheral vascular disease. We compared the outcome of our first 180 consecutive TA and TF TAVI patients and we identified risk factors for postoperative hospital mortality, vascular complications and stroke.
Anzeige
Methods
In the database, we identified the first 90 TA-TAVI cases (TA-group) and the first 90 TF-TAVI cases (TF-group) performed from 2009 to 2014. In our institution, TA-TAVI was performed since 2009 while TF-TAVI were scheduled since 2010. During the same period of time, only few transaortic TAVI have been performed and they are not included in the study.
Clinical variables were prospectively collected in the hospital database and then retrospectively analysed to compare the two groups and to identify risk factors for hospital mortality (30 days mortality or within hospital stay), neurological events (stroke) and vascular complications (major vascular complications including access-site related complications, aortic dissections, aortic root rupture and tamponade due to ventricular rupture) using the VARC-2 definitions described elsewhere [16]. All patients signed informed consents for the index procedure, for the use of clinical data in medical research and for clinical data analysis (Patients included in the Swiss TAVI Registry approved by the Ethics Committee of the Vaud State in Switzerland).
Patients selection criteria
Patients suffering from severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis with concomitant comorbidities were studied for inclusion in the TAVI program. Standard inclusion criteria for TAVI were used to identify good candidates and the Logistic Euro-SCORE was calculated for all patients to predict hospital mortality. In order to proceed with transcatheter interventions the final decision came from the hospital Heart-Team, in particular concerning patients not fulfilling standard criteria (i.e. younger patients with severe liver disease or patients with porcelain aortas).
Important exclusion criteria for both TA and TF approach were the presence of concomitant severe valvular or coronary disease not suitable for percutaneous procedure, severe left ventricular dysfunction with ejection fraction below 20% and severe patient frailty evaluated by the Heart-Team, which consists of a cardiologist, a surgeon (both coordinators for the TAVI program), an anaesthesiologist, a radiologist and a geriatrician.
Anzeige
An important observation is that during the study period, transapical and transfemoral procedures were not equally distributed (Fig. 1). This was due to the access-site selection process performed by the Heart-Team that embraced, during the years, the launch of new “low-profile” transfemoral devices leading to more valves implanted transfemorally.
Fig. 1
Transapical and transfemoral TAVI distribution in our hospital during the study period
×
All patients enrolled in the TAVI program underwent complementary trans-thoracic echocardiogram, coronary angiogram and three-dimensional cardiovascular computed tomography scan (3D CT-scan) to analyse alternative access routes and to determine the valve size. Peripheral vascular access routes smaller than 6 mm diameter or presenting severe annular calcifications were not considered good access sites for transfemoral TAVR, such as the presence of abdominal aorta aneurysms and vessel tortuosity. In these cases, TA was considered the best option. Pre-dilation of small ilio-femoral arteries was never attempted. The aortic valve annulus was assessed by injected aortic CT-scan and trans-oesophageal echocardiography using the diameter, the area and the perimeter for the stent-valve sizing. Patients with chronic kidney failure underwent CT-scan and coronary angiograms with low-dose of contrast.
Ta-Tavi
TA-TAVI were performed under general anaesthesia through a left antero-lateral mini-thoracotomy at fifth intercostal space. Intraoperative imaging included trans-oesophageal echocardiography to confirm the valve size and fluoroscopy. The apexes were prepared with concentric reinforced purse-string sutures and the devices were the Sapien™ (2009–2010), the Sapien™ XT (2011–2013) and the Sapien™ 3 (2014) valves (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). At the beginning of our series, complication-free patients used to be transferred intubated to the intensive care unit while, after getting more experienced, patients were rapidly extubated in the cath-lab and transferred to the intermediate care unit. As previously reported, echo-guided TA-TAVI were performed without contrast injections [17].
Tf-Tavi
Patients with good vascular access underwent TF-TAVI under general anaesthesia. According to our policy, the vascular access was surgically performed with a 3 cm skin incision at the groin in order to puncture the femoral artery under direct vision and prevent collateral damage. Cardiac imaging was similar to TA-TAVI while the devices were the Sapien™ valves, as mentioned above, but also the Medtronic CoreValve™ (Medtronic inc, Minneapolis, MN). All complication-free patients were extubated in the cath-lab and transferred to the intermediate care unit.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using R (version 3.2.2). Continuous variables are summarized as mean ± Standard Deviation and a t-test is used to compare the two groups. Categorical variables are presented as numbers and proportions (%) and a χ2 test or a Fisher exact test is used to compare the two groups. Selected categorical and continuous variables were analysed as risk-factors for hospital mortality (death occurring within 30 days or during the same hospitalization), disabling neurological complications and major vascular complications, using univariate logistic regression. A p-value below 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Baseline clinical characteristics are described in Tables 1 and 2. Mean age was 80 ± 8.5 and 83 ± 8.4 years, in the TA and TF-group, respectively (p = 0.014), while the sex distribution was similar (50% male patients in the TA-group and 41% in the TF-group, p = 0.231).
Table 1
Demographics, symptoms, risk factors
Overall
(N = 180)
TA-TAVI
(N = 90)
TF-TAVI
(N = 90)
p
Mean age (years)
82 ± 8.6
80 ± 8.5
83 ± 8.4
0.014
Men
82 (46%)
45 (50%)
37 (41%)
0.231a
COPD
38 (21%)
29 (32%)
9 (10%)
<0.001a
Peripheral vascular disease
91 (51%)
71 (79%)
20 (22%)
<0.001a
Previous vascular surgery
17 (9%)
13 (14%)
4 (4%)
0.039
Coronary disease
90 (50%)
54 (60%)
36 (40%)
0.007a
Previous coronary surgery
27 (15%)
19 (21%)
8 (9%)
0.022a
Previous cardiac surgery
40 (22%)
25 (28%)
15 (17%)
0.073a
Previous coronary angioplasty/stenting
28 (16%)
13 (14%)
15 (17%)
0.681a
Hypertension
117 (65%)
56 (62%)
61 (68%)
0.435a
Chronic renal failure
75 (42%)
38 (42%)
37 (41%)
0.880a
Dialysis
7 (4%)
4 (4%)
3 (3%)
1
Previous stroke
20 (11%)
11 (12%)
9 (10%)
0.635a
Diabetes (insulin)
30 (17%)
18 (20%)
12 (13%)
0.230a
Liver disease (CHILD score)
5 (3%)
3 (3%)
2 (2%)
1
pacemaker implantation
21 (12%)
9 (10%)
12 (13%)
0.486a
Chest radiotherapy
16 (9%)
7 (8%)
9 (10%)
0.600a
Preoperative critical state
15 (8%)
13 (14%)
2 (2%)
0.005
Porcelain aorta
12 (13%)
12 (13%)
0 (0%)
1
logistic Euro-SCORE (%)
31 ± 16
36 ± 15
25 ± 14
<0.001
Data presented as mean ± SD or N (%)
a Chi2 value, otherwise it’s a Fischer test or a T-Test value
COPD Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Table 2
Preoperative imaging and valve hemodynamic
Overall
(N = 180)
TA-TAVI
(N = 90)
TF-TAVI (N = 90)
p
Transaortic valve gradient (mmHg)
67 ± 26
62 ± 25
71 ± 28
Mean aortic valve area (cm2)
0.9 ± 3.4
1.2 ± 4.8
0.7 ± 0.2
Indexed aortic valve area (cm2/m2)
0.4 ± 0.1
0.4 ± 0.1
0.4 ± 0.1
Mean left ventricular ejection fraction (%)
54 ± 13
52 ± 12
56 ± 13
> 50%
101 (56%)
42 (47%)
59 (66%)
0.008*
30–50%
70 (39%)
42 (47%)
28 (32%)
< 30%
8 (4%)
6 (6%)
2 (2%)
Pulmonary hypertension
101 (56%)
48 (53%)
53 (59%)
0.453*
Mean aortic annulus diameter measured with CT-scan (mm)
23 ± 2.3
23 ± 2.5
24 ± 2.1
Mean aortic annulus diameter measured with TOE (mm)
23 ± 2.2
22 ± 2
22 ± 2.4
Mean distance: annulus-left coronary ostium (mm)
13 ± 2.9
12 ± 2
14 ± 3.2
Mean distance: annulus-right coronary ostium (mm)
134 ± 4
12 ± 3
15 ± 4.4
Data presented as mean ± SD or N (%). * Chi2 value
CT Computed Tomography, TOE Transoesophageal echocardiography
TA-group presented higher prevalence of comorbidities: more vascular disease (TA:79%, TF:22%, p < 0.001), chronic pulmonary disease (TA:32%, TF:10%, p < 0.001), higher prevalence of previously performed vascular surgery (TA:14%, TF:4%, p = 0.039), higher coronary disease (TA:60%, TF:40%, p = 0.007), more previously performed coronary surgery (TA:21%, TF:9%, p = 0.022) and more previously performed cardiac surgery (TA:28%, TF:17%, p = 0.073). Thirteen percent of patients in the TA-group had a porcelain aorta, versus none in the TF-group. More patients with critical preoperative state were included in the TA-group (TA:14%, TF:2%, p = 0.005) and the logistic Euro-SCORE was higher in the TA-group (36 ± 15% for the TA-group compared to 25 ± 4% for the TF-group; p < 0.001).
Successful implantation rate was 100% with longer procedural time in the TF-group (TA:98 ± 33 min, TF:127 ± 56 min, p < 0.001). Twelve patients had redo valve-in-valve for degenerated aortic bioprosthesis, while seven patients received two stent-valves because of a stent-valve malpositioning or migration of the previously implanted stent-valve.
Anzeige
Mean valve size and valve size distribution are listed in Table 3.
Table 3
Procedural data
Overall
(N = 180)
TA-TAVI (N = 90)
TF-TAVI (N = 90)
p
Sapien™ and Sapien XT™
146 (81%)
86 (96%)
60 (67%)
Sapien 3™
8 (4%)
4 (4%)
4 (4%)
CoreValve™
26 (29%)
NA
26 (29%)
Valve-in-valve in degenerated bioprosthesis
12 (7%)
7 (8%)
5 (6%)
0.550a
Bailout valve-in-valve for migration or malpositioning
7 (4%)
3 (3%)
4 (4%)
1
Mean valve size (mm)
25 ± 2.1
25 ± 1.9
25 ± 2.2
Valve size distribution
23 mm
75 (42%)
40 (44%)
35 (39%)
26 mm
77 (43%)
43 (48%)
44 (49%)
29 mm
14 (8%)
7 (8%)
7 (8%)
31 mm
4 (4%)
0 (0%)
4 (4%)
Procedural time (min)
113 ± 48
98 ± 33
127 ± 56
<0.001
Data presented as mean ± SD or N (%)
a Chi2 value, otherwise it’s a Fischer test or a T-Test value
With regards to hospital mortality and complication, variables were analysed using VARC-2 definitions (Table 4). Mortality for the two groups was similar (TA:9%, TF:10%, p = 0.799) with a learning curve effect at the beginning of our experience. Main cause of death in TA-group was respiratory failure (3%), whereas in the TF-group was disabling stroke (3%). Major vascular complications (including access-related vascular complication, aortic dissection, acute leg ischemia and aortic rupture) occurred more often in the TF-group (TA:3%, TF:11%, p = 0.081) whereas major/life-threatening bleeding (including cardiac tamponade) (TA:3%, TF:4%, p = 1), disabling stroke (TA:2%, TF:3%, p = 1), and bailout valve-in-valve for valve migration or malpositioning (TA:3%, TF:4%, p = 1) were equally distributed (Fig. 2). Re-thoracotomy for bleeding was performed in three TA and a percutaneous pericardial drainage for tamponade was urgently performed in two TF without further surgical exploration. Three patients in TA-group required dialysis.
Table 4
Hospital outcome
Overall
(N = 180)
TA-TAVI (N = 90)
TF-TAVI
(N = 90)
p
Hospital mortality
17 (9%)
8 (9%)
9 (10%)
0.799*
Cause of death
Respiratory failure
3 (2%)
3 (3%)
0 (0%)
Cardiac tamponade for annulus rupture
2 (1%)
0 (0%)
2 (2%)
Valve migration
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
1 (1%)
Myocardial infarction
1 (1%)
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
Heart failure
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
1 (1%)
Sudden death
1 (1%)
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
Cardiac arrest
2 (1%)
0 (0%)
2 (2%)
Life-threatening bleeding
1 (1%)
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
Multiple organ failure
1 (1%)
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
Disabling stroke
4 (2%)
1 (1%)
3 (3%)
Complications
Major vascular complications (including access related vascular complication, aortic rupture and dissection, leg ischemia)
13 (7%)
3 (3%)
10 (11%)
0.081
Valve migration
3 (2%)
1 (1%)
2 (2%)
1
Major/life-threatening bleeding (including cardiac tamponade for aortic rupture or ventricular tear)
7 (4%)
3 (3%)
4 (4%)
1
Disabling Stroke
5 (3%)
2 (2%)
3 (3%)
1
Coronary occlusion
1 (1%)
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
1
Bailout Sapien-in-Sapien for stent-valve migration or malpositioning
7 (4%)
3 (3%)
4 (4%)
1
Pneumonia
6 (3%)
5 (6%)
1 (1%)
0.211
Rethoracotomy for bleeding (TA)/pericardial drainage for tamponade (TF)
5 (3%)
3 (3%)
2 (2%)
1
Postoperative acute renal failure
4 (2%)
3 (3%)
1 (1%)
0.621
Dialysis
3 (2%)
3 (3%)
0 (0%)
0.246
New pacemaker for conduction abnormality
7 (4%)
2 (2%)
5 (6%)
0.444
Conversion to sternotomy
2 (1%)
2 (2%)
0 (0%)
0.497
Bailout cardiopulmonary bypass
4 (2%)
4 (4%)
0 (0%)
0.121
Early extubation
123 (68%)
40 (44%)
83 (92%)
<0.001*
Intensive Care Unit stay (days)
1.4 ± 4.1 (median:0)
2.6 ± 5.5 (median:1)
0.2 ± 0.7 (median:0)
<0.001
Hospital stay (days)
11.7 ± 9.1 (median:9)
13.9 ± 9.5 (median:10)
9.4 ± 8.2 (median:8)
<0.001
Postoperative peak gradient (mmHg)
17.6 ± 9.5
16.7 ± 9.4
18.5 ± 9.5
0.219
Postoperative mean gradient (mmHg)
9.5 ± 5.3
9.2 ± 5.1
9.7 ± 5.5
0.563
Paravalvular leak: mild to severe
28 (16%)
5 (6%)
23 (26%)
<0.001*
Trace of paravalvular leak
48 (27%)
15 (17%)
33 (37%)
Mild paravalvular leak
25 (14%)
5 (5%)
20 (22%)
Moderate paravalvular leak
2 (1%)
0 (0%)
2 (2%)
Severe paravalvular leak
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
1 (1%)
Data presented as mean ± SD or N (%)
*Chi2 value, otherwise it’s a Fischer test or a T-Test value
Fig. 2
Postoperative complications of TA and TF TAVI according to the VARC-2 definitions
×
As per the onset of new conduction abnormalities leading to pacemaker implantation, five devices were implanted in the TF-group (2 in Sapien™ valves and 3 in CoreValves™) and two in the TA-group (p = 0.444).
Echocardiographic controls showed similar peak (TA:17 ± 9.4 mmHg, TF:18 ± 9.5, mmHg; p = 0.219) and mean transvalvular gradients (TA:9.2 ± 5.1 mmHg, TF:9.7 ± 5.5 mmHg; p = 0.563) in both groups. Mild to severe paravalvular leaks were detected more in TF cases (TA:5%, TF:25%, p < 0.001) (Table 4). Nevertheless, moderate and severe paravalvular leaks were 0% in TA and 3% in TF patients.
Anzeige
Selected variables were analysed as risk factors for hospital mortality (Table 5), major vascular complications (Table 6) and disabling neurological complications according to the VARC-2 definitions (Table 7).
Table 5
Univariate logistical regression analysis for hospital mortality (N:180)
Total
n.0
n.1
163
17
Binary variables
n.0
p.0
n.1
p.1
or
or.sd
or.ci95
p
Transfemoral procedure
81
49.7%
9
52.9%
1.14
1.67
0.42
3.10
0.799
Gender (M)
76
46.6%
6
35.3%
0.62
1.70
0.22
1.77
0.375
COPD
34
20.9%
4
23.5%
1.17
1.83
0.36
3.81
0.798
Vascular disease
81
49.7%
10
58.8%
1.45
1.68
0.52
3.98
0.476
Previous vascular surgery
16
9.8%
1
5.9%
0.57
2.90
0.07
4.62
0.602
Coronary disease
82
50.3%
8
47.1%
0.88
1.67
0.32
2.39
0.799
Previous CABG
25
15.3%
2
11.8%
0.74
2.19
0.16
3.42
0.696
Previous cardiac surgery
35
21.5%
5
29.4%
1.52
1.76
0.50
4.62
0.456
Previous STENT
23
14.1%
5
29.4%
2.54
1.78
0.82
7.87
0.107
Hypertension
108
66.3%
9
52.9%
0.57
1.67
0.21
1.57
0.278
Renal failure
66
40.5%
9
52.9%
1.65
1.67
0.61
4.51
0.326
Previous stroke
17
10.4%
3
17.6%
1.84
1.99
0.48
7.06
0.374
Diabetes
27
16.6%
3
17.6%
1.08
1.95
0.29
4.01
0.909
Pacemaker
19
11.7%
2
11.8%
1.01
2.21
0.21
4.77
0.989
Thorax radiotherapy
14
8.6%
2
11.8%
1.42
2.23
0.29
6.85
0.663
Critical state
11
6.7%
4
23.5%
4.25
1.92
1.19
15.24
0.026
Logistic EuroScore >20%
117
71.8%
12
70.6%
0.94
1.75
0.31
2.83
0.917
LVEF > 50%
91
55.8%
10
62.5%
1.32
1.72
0.46
3.80
0.608
Pulmonary hypertension
95
58.3%
6
35.3%
0.39
1.70
0.14
1.11
0.077
Valve-in-valve
11
6.7%
1
5.9%
0.86
2.94
0.10
7.13
0.892
Vascular complication
8
4.9%
5
29.4%
8.07
1.90
2.28
28.53
0.001
Valve migration
1
0.6%
2
11.8%
21.60
3.50
1.85
252
0.014
Life-threatening bleeding
3
1.8%
4
23.5%
16.41
2.26
3.31
81.29
0.001
Postoperative stroke
2
1.2%
3
17.6%
17.25
2.60
2.66
112
0.003
Pneumonia
4
2.5%
2
11.8%
5.30
2.48
0.90
31.37
0.066
Postoperative acute renal failure
2
1.2%
2
11.8%
10.73
2.82
1.41
81.73
0.022
Postoperative dialysis
1
0.6%
2
11.8%
21.60
3.50
1.85
252
0.014
New pacemaker
6
3.7%
1
5.9%
1.64
3.04
0.19
14.45
0.658
Cardiopulmonary bypass use
1
0.6%
3
17.6%
34.71
3.28
3.38
356
0.003
Early extubation (within 4 h)
118
72.4%
5
29.4%
0.16
1.75
0.05
0.48
0.001
Paravalvular leak (mild to severe)
25
15.4%
3
20.0%
1.37
1.98
0.36
5.21
0.644
OR odds ratio, OR.SD odds ratio standard deviation, OR.CI95 odds ratio 95% confidence interval, COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, CABG coronary artery bypass graft, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction
Table 6
Univariate logistical regression analysis for major vascular complications (N:180)
n.0
n.1
Total
167
13
Binary variables
n.0
p.0
n.1
p.1
or
or.sd
or.ci95
p
Transfemoral procedure
80
47.9%
10
76.9%
3.62
1.97
0.96
13.64
0.057
Gender (M)
78
46.7%
4
30.8%
0.51
1.86
0.15
1.71
0.274
COPD
36
21.6%
2
15.4%
0.66
2.21
0.14
3.12
0.602
Vascular disease
84
50.3%
7
53.8%
1.15
1.78
0.37
3.58
0.806
Previous vascular surgery
15
9.0%
2
15.4%
1.84
2.26
0.37
9.10
0.453
Coronary disease
85
50.9%
5
38.5%
0.60
1.81
0.19
1.92
0.392
Previous CABG
26
15.6%
1
7.7%
0.45
2.89
0.06
3.62
0.455
Previous cardiac surgery
38
22.8%
2
15.4%
0.62
2.20
0.13
2.91
0.542
Hypertension
110
65.9%
7
53.8%
0.60
1.79
0.19
1.88
0.385
Renal failure
72
43.1%
3
23.1%
0.40
1.97
0.11
1.49
0.171
Diabetes
29
17.4%
1
7.7%
0.40
2.89
0.05
3.17
0.383
Pacemaker implantation
20
12.0%
1
7.7%
0.61
2.91
0.08
4.97
0.646
Thorax radiotherapy
14
8.4%
2
15.4%
1.99
2.27
0.40
9.87
0.401
Critical state
14
8.4%
1
7.7%
0.91
2.94
0.11
7.53
0.931
Logistic EuroSCORE >20%
121
72.5%
8
61.5%
0.61
1.81
0.19
1.96
0.404
LVEF > 50%
95
57.2%
6
46.2%
0.64
1.78
0.21
1.99
0.441
Pulmonary hypertension
96
57.5%
5
38.5%
0.46
1.81
0.15
1.47
0.192
Valve-in-valve
11
6.6%
1
7.7%
1.18
2.96
0.14
9.94
0.878
Hospital mortality
12
7.2%
5
38.5%
8.07
1.90
2.28
28.53
0.001
Disabling Stroke
4
2.4%
1
7.7%
3.40
3.18
0.35
32.82
0.291
Pericardial drainage/rethoracotomy for bleeding
4
2.4%
1
7.7%
3.40
3.18
0.35
32.82
0.291
Postoperative acute renal failure
3
1.8%
1
7.7%
4.56
3.30
0.44
47.19
0.204
Postoperative dialysis
2
1.2%
1
7.7%
6.87
3.53
0.58
81.36
0.126
Conversion to sternotomy
1
0.6%
1
7.7%
13.83
4.24
0.81
235
0.069
Cardiopulmonary bypass use
2
1.2%
2
15.4%
15.00
2.85
1.93
116
0.010
Early extubation (within 4 h)
117
70.1%
6
46.2%
0.37
1.79
0.12
1.14
0.084
Paravalvular leak (mild to severe)
26
15.8%
2
16.7%
1.07
2.23
0.22
5.16
0.934
OR odds ratio, OR.SD odds ratio standard deviation, OR.CI95 odds ratio 95% confidence interval, COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, CABG coronary artery bypass graft, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction
Table 7
Univariate logistical regression analysis for neurological complications (N:180)
n.0
n.1
Total
175
5
Binary variables
n.0
p.0
n.1
p.1
or
or.sd
or.ci95
p
Transfemoral procedure
87
49.7%
3
60.0%
1.52
2.52
0.25
9.30
0.652
Gender (M)
81
46.3%
1
20.0%
0.29
3.09
0.03
2.65
0.273
COPD
37
21.1%
1
20.0%
0.93
3.11
0.10
8.59
0.951
Vascular disease
88
50.3%
3
60.0%
1.48
2.52
0.24
9.09
0.670
Coronary disease
88
50.3%
2
40.0%
0.66
2.52
0.11
4.04
0.652
Previous CABG
26
14.9%
1
20.0%
1.43
3.12
0.15
13.33
0.752
Previous cardiac surgery
38
21.7%
2
40.0%
2.40
2.54
0.39
14.91
0.346
Previous coronary stenting
27
15.4%
1
20.0%
1.37
3.12
0.15
12.74
0.782
Hypertension
114
65.1%
3
60.0%
0.80
2.53
0.13
4.93
0.812
Previous stroke
19
10.9%
1
20.0%
2.05
3.14
0.22
19.33
0.530
Diabetes
29
16.6%
1
20.0%
1.26
3.12
0.14
11.67
0.840
LVEF > 50%
97
55.7%
4
80.0%
3.18
3.09
0.35
28.99
0.306
Pulmonary hypertension
98
56.0%
3
60.0%
1.18
2.52
0.19
7.23
0.859
Hospital mortality
14
8.0%
3
60.0%
17.25
2.60
2.66
112
0.003
Vascular complication
12
6.9%
1
20.0%
3.40
3.18
0.35
32.82
0.291
Postoperative acute renal failure
3
1.7%
1
20.0%
14.33
3.53
1.21
169
0.035
Postoperative dialysis
2
1.1%
1
20.0%
21.62
3.76
1.61
290
0.020
Early extubation (within 4 h)
121
69.1%
2
40.0%
0.30
2.53
0.05
1.83
0.191
OR odds ratio, OR.SD odds ratio standard deviation, OR.CI95 odds ratio 95% confidence interval, COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, CABG coronary artery bypass grafting, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction
Concerning the hospital mortality, some variables were statistically related to a higher risk of death: critical preoperative state (p = 0.026; OR, 4.25; 95% CI, 1.19–15.24), major vascular complications (p = 0.001; OR, 8.07; 95% CI, 2.28–28.53), stent-valve migration (p = 0.014; OR, 21.6; 95% CI, 1.85–252), life-threatening bleeding (p = 0.001; OR, 16.41; 95% CI, 3.31–81.29), disabling stroke (p = 0.003; OR, 17.25; 95% CI, 2.66–112), renal failure (p = 0.022; OR, 10.73; 95% CI, 1.41–81.73), postoperative dialysis (p = 0.014; OR, 21.6; 95% CI, 1.85–252) and need for emergency cardiopulmonary bypass (p = 0.003; OR, 34.71; 95% CI, 3.38–356) (Table 5). Early extubation (defined as extubation within 4 h since the end of the index procedure) represents a protective factor against hospital mortality (p = 0.001; OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05–0.48).
About risk factors for major vascular complications, use of emergency cardiopulmonary bypass was associated with higher rate of vascular injury (p = 0.010; OR, 15; 95% CI, 1.93–116) (Table 6). Concerning risk factors for disabling stroke, postoperative acute renal failure and dialysis were associated with poor neurological outcome (p = 0.035; OR, 14.33; 95% CI, 1.21–169; and p = 0.020; OR, 21.62; 95% CI, 1.61–290, respectively) (Table 7).
Discussion
Since the beginning of transcatheter aortic valve therapies, the two main access routes are the transfemoral and the transapical ones, allowing for placement of balloon-expandable and self-expanding valves of different size. However, the allocation to one of these two access routes is still questionable and based, at the time being, on the presence of a severe vascular disease of the aorta or ilio-femoral vessels, or on the possibility of performing the TF case under sedation [18‐22].
Anzeige
In our experience, patients allocated to the two groups (all performed under general anaesthesia) showed different comorbidity patterns: patients in the TA-group presented higher prevalence of comorbidities, higher logistic Euro-SCORE and were more often in a preoperative critical state. Thus, according to the fact that all patients with severe vascular disease were automatically included in the TA-group, we faced a TA population carrying a higher risk profile compared to the TF population. However, the hospital mortality rate and neurological outcome were similar.
Hospital mortality of our first TAVI series is in-line with published preliminary results of TA vs TF showing rates ranges between 5% and 15%, without statistical differences between the groups [18‐22]. In a retrospective study, Van der Boon reported hospital mortality of 6.4% for TF and 15.7% for TA whereas in a prospective study including thousand TAVI from Schymik and al. the mortality was 6.5% for TF and 6.1% for TA [19, 21]. Murarka and al. also reported promising mortality rates of 4.5% for TF and 5.3% for TA in a retrospective single-centre experience [22]. However, none of these three aforementioned studies was able to demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the two popular approaches.
In our report, neurological outcome showed similar results for TA and TF (stroke = TA:2%, TF:3%, p = 1) and we didn’t observe a significant difference. Our results are similar to published data. Schymik described 2.3% of stroke in the TF-group and 1.7% in the TA-group with a non-significant p-value between the groups. Other published series show similar conclusions [18‐22].
If we consider paravalvular leaks and access-related vascular injuries, we identified a discrepancy in favour for the TA approach. In particular, the mild to severe paravalvular leak incidence (TA:6%, TF:26%, p < 0.001) of our patients was similar to the one published in a retrospective study from Greason and co-workers who reported 12% of mild to severe paravalvular leak in TF versus 8.4% in the TA group [18]. Nevertheless, the incidence of moderate-severe PVL only is low in our groups and almost similar between the two population. Murarka and colleagues as well, have observed similar results between TA and TF with 7.6% of moderate-severe paravalvular leaks in TF-group and 7% in TA-group (p = 0.999) [22]. The reason for some discrepancies in paravalvular leak rate in the 2 techniques can be due to the more direct and more precise valve positioning during TA cases but this is not proved yet. Moreover, as far as paravalvular leaks are concerned, we have to admit that, in our experience, we have seen a great improvement after the launch of last-generation Sapien™ 3 valve featuring an innovative outer skirt preventing leaks. Therefore, we can speculate that, in the future, the use of this valve (or other stent-valves addressing the issue of paravalvular leaks with improved technologies) will reduce the incidence of clinically-relevant leaks.
Regarding the major access-related vascular complication rate in our group, this was higher in TF patients but the result is not statistically significant (TA:3%, TF:11%, p = 0.081). In comparison, if we look at recent publications we can see that the incidence of this complication is more prevalent in TF as well: Schymik reported 17.5% of major vascular complications in TF versus 2.5% in TA (p = <0.0001) [19]. Murarka and colleagues observed similar trend, with 12.1% of major vascular complications in the TF-group versus 0% in the TA-group [22]. New generation devices with low-profile introducer sheaths and small delivery systems will help decreasing the incidence of access site vascular complications in future reports.
As long as the intensive care unit length of stay and extubation time are concerned, in our study these numbers were slightly longer for TA-TAVI patients and this finding is justified by the fact that at the beginning TA patients were all transferred, intubated, to the intensive care unit and then transferred to the intermediate care unit on postoperative day one. On the other hand, since the beginning, complication-free transfemoral TAVI cases were rapidly extubated in the cath-lab and transferred to the intermediate care unit. However, these results are not comparable with other centres as local hospital policies and daily practice can be very different and, sometimes, they can change with acquired experience.
An important point of discussion is the development of new TAVI devices: new generations of stent-valve equipment have more performant designs and low-profile delivery systems assuring lower incidence of paravalvular leak and vascular injury. This development can have a great impact in future reports on TAVI mortality and morbidity allowing for the use of these new devices in mid-risk and younger patients.
Our study presents some limitations. It is a retrospective study describing the hospital outcome of first cases of TA and TF TAVI performed at our Institution with a relatively small number of patients. The population included the preliminary TAVI experience of our hospital and, therefore, a physiologic learning curve can have negatively affected the first-period clinical outcome. The patient-selection process has also changed during the study period as well as the use of new-generation devices.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study shows our first TAVI experience and results are similar to published data. Based on our findings, we can confirm that transcatheter techniques are promising and provide good hospital outcomes. Improved surgeons’ and cardiologists’ skills and the advent of last-generation devices will facilitate the stent-valve delivery and will help improving the risk of vascular complication, neurological complication and paravalvular leak, also for use in intermediate-risk patients.
Acknowledgments
We thank Jérôme Pasquier, statistician at University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Funding
No founding was provided.
Availability of data and materials
Please contact the corresponding author for data requests.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The patients inclusion in the Swiss TAVI Registry has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Vaud State in Switzerland. All patients approved and signed informed consent for surgery and use of data for clinical research.
Consent for publication
All patients approved and signed informed consents for surgery and use of data for clinical research (Swiss TAVI Registry).
Competing interests
Dr. Enrico Ferrari is consultant and proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Other Authors have no conflicts of interest.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.
Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?
Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.
