Minimalistic Approach for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI): Open Vascular Vs. Fully Percutaneous Approach

Prilozi Pub Date : 2019-10-01 DOI:10.2478/prilozi-2019-0009
S. Kedev, B. Zafirovska, E. Srbinovska-Kostovska, S. Antov, A. Nikolić, O. Dzemali, M. Bunc
{"title":"Minimalistic Approach for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI): Open Vascular Vs. Fully Percutaneous Approach","authors":"S. Kedev, B. Zafirovska, E. Srbinovska-Kostovska, S. Antov, A. Nikolić, O. Dzemali, M. Bunc","doi":"10.2478/prilozi-2019-0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background: Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular heart disease in elderly people. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a revolutionary treatment for elderly patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. The authors present the first experiences with transcatheter aortic valve implantation treatment in Macedonia and compare their findings in regard to differences between open vascular vs. minimalistic transfemoral TAVI approach. Methods: The procedure was performed in 54 patients with severe and symptomatic AS in the period from December 2014 until February 2018. All patients were deemed having high surgical risk or were denied surgery. Pre-procedural screening included detailed clinical and echocardiographic evaluation, coronary, peripheral and carotid angiography and computed tomography scan of the aortic root. A self-expandable aortic valve (Core Valve/Evolut R, Medtronic, USA) was implanted in all patients. Results: Mean patient age was 75 ± 7.2 years, 28 (52%) were female, 26 patients (48%) male. All interventions were successfully performed through right transfemoral approach with 100% implantation success. Ancillary right radial and ulnar approach was used for correct valve positioning and control. 22(40%) cases were performed under general anesthesia and open vascular access to the femoral artery. All other 32(60%) cases were performed with minimalistic approach (local anaesthesia and analgosedation of the patients, access site was closed with closure devices). Patients in the minimalistic approach group were older, with more chronic conditions as anaemia, chronic kidney disease, poor mobility and peripheral vascular disease (p<0.0001). Also 4(12.5%) patients in the minimalistic group had bicuspid valve TAVI implantation (p<0.0001). Procedural time and contrast amount spent were shorter in this group with 97± 38 vs. 121± 38.3(p<0.0001) and 287± 122 vs. 330± 115 ml, while fluoroscopy time was similar in both groups. Immediate hemodynamic improvement was obtained in all patients. Echocardiographic peak gradient decreased from 85 ± 25 to 17 ± 8 mmHg (p < 0.001) and mean pressure gradient from 49 ± 26 to 8.3 ± 4.2 mmHg, (p < 0.001). Effective valve orifice area was 1.8±0.4 cm2 after intervention. None of the patients had significant aortic regurgitation after implantation. After intervention 7(12%) patients developed a permanent heart block and required implantation of a permanent pacemaker. There was a larger Hgb drop after intervention with open vs. minimalistic approach 1,9±0.9 vs. 0.7±0,2 g/dL (p<0.0001). 3 (13% vs.0%) patients from the open vascular access group had a major bleeding complication with 2 requiring transfusion after intervention (p<0.0001). Mortality was 5.5%, 2 with open-vascular and 1 with minimalistic approach. MACCE rate that included MI, Stroke, Major bleeding and Death rate, was recorded in 5(18%) patients with open vascular approach vs. 1(3.1%) in minimalistic approach (p<0.0001). Hospital discharge was 8.7±3.1 vs. 4±3.1 days respectively (p<0.0001). All TAVI patients with minimalistic approach were discharged the following day after intervention. All discharged patients had a good neurological condition, which was assessed based on the CPC-1 (Cerebra Performance Categories Scale). After median follow up of 26 months, the survival rate was 95% with clinical improvement in all patients. Conclusion: Percutaneous aortic valve implantation can be successfully conducted with high success rate and low rate of complications in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Using a less invasive approach with local anaesthesia and analgosedation is associated with shorter length of stay and a decrease in post-procedural complication rates and MACCE.","PeriodicalId":87202,"journal":{"name":"Prilozi","volume":"13 9","pages":"14 - 5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prilozi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/prilozi-2019-0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Background: Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular heart disease in elderly people. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a revolutionary treatment for elderly patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. The authors present the first experiences with transcatheter aortic valve implantation treatment in Macedonia and compare their findings in regard to differences between open vascular vs. minimalistic transfemoral TAVI approach. Methods: The procedure was performed in 54 patients with severe and symptomatic AS in the period from December 2014 until February 2018. All patients were deemed having high surgical risk or were denied surgery. Pre-procedural screening included detailed clinical and echocardiographic evaluation, coronary, peripheral and carotid angiography and computed tomography scan of the aortic root. A self-expandable aortic valve (Core Valve/Evolut R, Medtronic, USA) was implanted in all patients. Results: Mean patient age was 75 ± 7.2 years, 28 (52%) were female, 26 patients (48%) male. All interventions were successfully performed through right transfemoral approach with 100% implantation success. Ancillary right radial and ulnar approach was used for correct valve positioning and control. 22(40%) cases were performed under general anesthesia and open vascular access to the femoral artery. All other 32(60%) cases were performed with minimalistic approach (local anaesthesia and analgosedation of the patients, access site was closed with closure devices). Patients in the minimalistic approach group were older, with more chronic conditions as anaemia, chronic kidney disease, poor mobility and peripheral vascular disease (p<0.0001). Also 4(12.5%) patients in the minimalistic group had bicuspid valve TAVI implantation (p<0.0001). Procedural time and contrast amount spent were shorter in this group with 97± 38 vs. 121± 38.3(p<0.0001) and 287± 122 vs. 330± 115 ml, while fluoroscopy time was similar in both groups. Immediate hemodynamic improvement was obtained in all patients. Echocardiographic peak gradient decreased from 85 ± 25 to 17 ± 8 mmHg (p < 0.001) and mean pressure gradient from 49 ± 26 to 8.3 ± 4.2 mmHg, (p < 0.001). Effective valve orifice area was 1.8±0.4 cm2 after intervention. None of the patients had significant aortic regurgitation after implantation. After intervention 7(12%) patients developed a permanent heart block and required implantation of a permanent pacemaker. There was a larger Hgb drop after intervention with open vs. minimalistic approach 1,9±0.9 vs. 0.7±0,2 g/dL (p<0.0001). 3 (13% vs.0%) patients from the open vascular access group had a major bleeding complication with 2 requiring transfusion after intervention (p<0.0001). Mortality was 5.5%, 2 with open-vascular and 1 with minimalistic approach. MACCE rate that included MI, Stroke, Major bleeding and Death rate, was recorded in 5(18%) patients with open vascular approach vs. 1(3.1%) in minimalistic approach (p<0.0001). Hospital discharge was 8.7±3.1 vs. 4±3.1 days respectively (p<0.0001). All TAVI patients with minimalistic approach were discharged the following day after intervention. All discharged patients had a good neurological condition, which was assessed based on the CPC-1 (Cerebra Performance Categories Scale). After median follow up of 26 months, the survival rate was 95% with clinical improvement in all patients. Conclusion: Percutaneous aortic valve implantation can be successfully conducted with high success rate and low rate of complications in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Using a less invasive approach with local anaesthesia and analgosedation is associated with shorter length of stay and a decrease in post-procedural complication rates and MACCE.
经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)的简约入路:开放血管与完全经皮入路
背景:主动脉瓣狭窄(Aortic stenosis, AS)是老年人最常见的瓣膜性心脏病。经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)已成为一种革命性的治疗老年症状性重度主动脉瓣狭窄的方法。作者介绍了马其顿经导管主动脉瓣植入治疗的首次经验,并比较了开放血管与微创经股TAVI入路的差异。方法:对2014年12月至2018年2月期间54例重度和有症状的AS患者进行该手术。所有患者均被认为有高手术风险或被拒绝手术。术前筛查包括详细的临床和超声心动图评估、冠状动脉、外周动脉和颈动脉血管造影以及主动脉根部的计算机断层扫描。所有患者均植入一个自膨胀主动脉瓣(Core valve /Evolut R, Medtronic, USA)。结果:患者平均年龄75±7.2岁,女性28例(52%),男性26例(48%)。所有干预均通过右经股入路成功完成,植入成功率100%。辅助右桡尺入路用于正确的瓣膜定位和控制。22例(40%)在全麻和股动脉开放血管通路下进行手术。其余32例(60%)均采用简约入路(患者局部麻醉和镇静,通路部位用封闭装置封闭)。简约入路组患者年龄较大,有更多的慢性疾病,如贫血、慢性肾病、活动能力差和周围血管疾病(p<0.0001)。微创组4例(12.5%)患者行双尖瓣TAVI植入术(p<0.0001)。本组手术时间和造影剂用量较短,分别为97±38 ml比121±38.3 ml (p<0.0001)和287±122 ml比330±115 ml,两组透视时间相似。所有患者的血流动力学均立即得到改善。超声心动图峰值梯度从85±25降至17±8 mmHg (p < 0.001),平均压力梯度从49±26降至8.3±4.2 mmHg (p < 0.001)。干预后有效阀口面积为1.8±0.4 cm2。植入后无明显主动脉反流。干预后,7例(12%)患者出现永久性心脏传导阻滞,需要植入永久性起搏器。开放入路与简约入路干预后Hgb下降幅度较大(1.9±0.9 vs 0.7±0.2 g/dL) (p<0.0001)。开放血管通路组3例(13% vs.0%)患者出现严重出血并发症,干预后2例需要输血(p<0.0001)。死亡率5.5%,其中2例为血管开放入路,1例为微创入路。MACCE发生率包括心肌梗死、卒中、大出血和死亡率,开放血管入路患者5例(18%),微创入路患者1例(3.1%)(p<0.0001)。出院天数分别为8.7±3.1天和4±3.1天(p<0.0001)。所有采用简约入路的TAVI患者均于干预后次日出院。所有出院患者神经系统状况良好,根据CPC-1(大脑功能分类量表)进行评估。中位随访26个月后,生存率为95%,所有患者均有临床改善。结论:经皮主动脉瓣植入术治疗严重主动脉瓣狭窄患者成功率高,并发症发生率低。采用侵入性较小的局部麻醉和镇痛入路可缩短住院时间,降低术后并发症发生率和MACCE。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信