通过替代经皮通路的电瓣膜经皮植入:临床结果

IF 1.2 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
REC Interventional Cardiology Pub Date : 2023-06-08 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.24875/RECIC.M23000389
André Grazina, Bárbara Lacerda Teixeira, Ruben Ramos, António Fiarresga, Alexandra Castelo, Tiago Mendonça, Inês Rodrigues, Lino Patrício, Duarte Cacela, Rui Cruz Ferreira
{"title":"通过替代经皮通路的电瓣膜经皮植入:临床结果","authors":"André Grazina, Bárbara Lacerda Teixeira, Ruben Ramos, António Fiarresga, Alexandra Castelo, Tiago Mendonça, Inês Rodrigues, Lino Patrício, Duarte Cacela, Rui Cruz Ferreira","doi":"10.24875/RECIC.M23000389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and objectives: </strong>Transfemoral access is globally accepted as the preferential access route for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, in up to 15% of the patients, this access is considered inadequate. Considering the various alternatives available, the fully percutaneous access routes have been chosen preferentially. This analysis aims to compare outcomes and complications of 3 alternative access routes for transfemoral, trans-subclavian and transcaval TAVI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective analysis of patients referred for TAVI using transfemoral, trans-subclavian, and transcaval accesses in a single tertiary center from 2008 through 2021. The primary endpoints were 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality rates. The secondary endpoints were technical success, residual moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak, major vascular complication, 30-day stroke, 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) major bleeding, and 30-day acute kidney injury (AKIN criteria 2 or 3).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 642 TAVIs were performed (601 transfemoral, 24 trans-subclavian, and 10 transcaval). A total of 7 patients treated via transapical access were excluded. As expected, baseline comorbidities like left ventricular dysfunction, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, and previous stroke were more frequent in the non-femoral groups. The 1-year and 30-day all-cause mortality rates were higher in the non-transfemoral population (HR, 2.88 and HR, 3.53, respectively). The rates of 30-day stroke and acute kidney injury (AKIN 2 or 3) were also significantly lower in transfemoral patients, but similar between trans-subclavian and transcaval patients. The rates of 30-day major bleeding showed a statistically significant tendency towards lower rates in the transfemoral group. The rates of technical success, major vascular complications, and residual moderate or severe perivalvular leak were similar among the 3 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>After careful selection, transfemoral access is the preferential access route for TAVI procedures. In intermediate surgical risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, non-transfemoral TAVI approaches have poorer outcomes. The worse outcomes of percutaneous alternative access routes are partially associated with worse baseline characteristics.</p>","PeriodicalId":34295,"journal":{"name":"REC Interventional Cardiology","volume":" ","pages":"13-19"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12097405/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Transcatheter aortic valve implantation via percutaneous alternative access routes: outcomes].\",\"authors\":\"André Grazina, Bárbara Lacerda Teixeira, Ruben Ramos, António Fiarresga, Alexandra Castelo, Tiago Mendonça, Inês Rodrigues, Lino Patrício, Duarte Cacela, Rui Cruz Ferreira\",\"doi\":\"10.24875/RECIC.M23000389\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction and objectives: </strong>Transfemoral access is globally accepted as the preferential access route for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, in up to 15% of the patients, this access is considered inadequate. Considering the various alternatives available, the fully percutaneous access routes have been chosen preferentially. This analysis aims to compare outcomes and complications of 3 alternative access routes for transfemoral, trans-subclavian and transcaval TAVI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective analysis of patients referred for TAVI using transfemoral, trans-subclavian, and transcaval accesses in a single tertiary center from 2008 through 2021. The primary endpoints were 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality rates. The secondary endpoints were technical success, residual moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak, major vascular complication, 30-day stroke, 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) major bleeding, and 30-day acute kidney injury (AKIN criteria 2 or 3).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 642 TAVIs were performed (601 transfemoral, 24 trans-subclavian, and 10 transcaval). A total of 7 patients treated via transapical access were excluded. As expected, baseline comorbidities like left ventricular dysfunction, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, and previous stroke were more frequent in the non-femoral groups. The 1-year and 30-day all-cause mortality rates were higher in the non-transfemoral population (HR, 2.88 and HR, 3.53, respectively). The rates of 30-day stroke and acute kidney injury (AKIN 2 or 3) were also significantly lower in transfemoral patients, but similar between trans-subclavian and transcaval patients. The rates of 30-day major bleeding showed a statistically significant tendency towards lower rates in the transfemoral group. The rates of technical success, major vascular complications, and residual moderate or severe perivalvular leak were similar among the 3 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>After careful selection, transfemoral access is the preferential access route for TAVI procedures. In intermediate surgical risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, non-transfemoral TAVI approaches have poorer outcomes. The worse outcomes of percutaneous alternative access routes are partially associated with worse baseline characteristics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34295,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"REC Interventional Cardiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"13-19\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12097405/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"REC Interventional Cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24875/RECIC.M23000389\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"REC Interventional Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24875/RECIC.M23000389","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介和目的:经股动脉通道是全球公认的经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)的首选通道。然而,在多达15%的患者中,这种途径被认为是不充分的。考虑到各种可供选择的途径,我们优先选择全经皮入路。本分析的目的是比较经股、经锁骨下和经颅三种不同入路TAVI的结局和并发症。方法:回顾性分析2008年至2021年在单一三级中心通过经股、经锁骨下和经颅通道接受TAVI的患者。主要终点是30天和1年的全因死亡率。次要终点是技术成功、残留的中重度瓣旁漏、主要血管并发症、30天中风、30天瓣膜学术研究协会-2 (VARC-2)大出血和30天急性肾损伤(AKIN标准2或3)。结果:共进行了642例TAVIs(601例经股骨,24例经锁骨下,10例经下腔)。排除经根尖通道治疗的患者共7例。正如预期的那样,基线合并症,如左心室功能障碍、冠状动脉疾病、心房颤动、慢性肾脏疾病和既往中风在非股组中更常见。非经股人群1年和30天全因死亡率较高(HR分别为2.88和3.53)。经股骨患者的30天卒中和急性肾损伤(AKIN 2或3)发生率也显著降低,但经锁骨下和经颅患者的发生率相似。经股组30天大出血发生率有统计学意义的降低趋势。三组手术成功率、主要血管并发症及残余中度或重度瓣周漏发生率相似。结论:经慎重选择,经股动脉入路是TAVI手术的首选入路。在有严重症状性主动脉瓣狭窄的中等手术风险患者中,非经股TAVI入路预后较差。经皮替代通路的较差结果部分与较差的基线特征相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[Transcatheter aortic valve implantation via percutaneous alternative access routes: outcomes].

Introduction and objectives: Transfemoral access is globally accepted as the preferential access route for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, in up to 15% of the patients, this access is considered inadequate. Considering the various alternatives available, the fully percutaneous access routes have been chosen preferentially. This analysis aims to compare outcomes and complications of 3 alternative access routes for transfemoral, trans-subclavian and transcaval TAVI.

Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients referred for TAVI using transfemoral, trans-subclavian, and transcaval accesses in a single tertiary center from 2008 through 2021. The primary endpoints were 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality rates. The secondary endpoints were technical success, residual moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak, major vascular complication, 30-day stroke, 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) major bleeding, and 30-day acute kidney injury (AKIN criteria 2 or 3).

Results: A total of 642 TAVIs were performed (601 transfemoral, 24 trans-subclavian, and 10 transcaval). A total of 7 patients treated via transapical access were excluded. As expected, baseline comorbidities like left ventricular dysfunction, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, and previous stroke were more frequent in the non-femoral groups. The 1-year and 30-day all-cause mortality rates were higher in the non-transfemoral population (HR, 2.88 and HR, 3.53, respectively). The rates of 30-day stroke and acute kidney injury (AKIN 2 or 3) were also significantly lower in transfemoral patients, but similar between trans-subclavian and transcaval patients. The rates of 30-day major bleeding showed a statistically significant tendency towards lower rates in the transfemoral group. The rates of technical success, major vascular complications, and residual moderate or severe perivalvular leak were similar among the 3 groups.

Conclusions: After careful selection, transfemoral access is the preferential access route for TAVI procedures. In intermediate surgical risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, non-transfemoral TAVI approaches have poorer outcomes. The worse outcomes of percutaneous alternative access routes are partially associated with worse baseline characteristics.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
REC Interventional Cardiology
REC Interventional Cardiology Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
28.60%
发文量
87
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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