Comparison of Transfemoral Versus Transradial Secondary Access in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
- PMID: 32089002
- DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008609
Comparison of Transfemoral Versus Transradial Secondary Access in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
Abstract
Background: Transfemoral approach has been commonly used as secondary access in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Scarce data exist on the use and potential clinical benefits of the transradial approach as secondary access during TAVR procedures. The objective of the study is to determine the occurrence of vascular complications (VC) and clinical outcomes according to secondary access (transfemoral versus transradial) in patients undergoing TAVR.
Methods: This was a multicenter study including 4949 patients who underwent TAVR (mean age, 81±8 years, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, 4.9 [3.3-7.5]). Transfemoral and transradial approaches were used as secondary access in 4016 (81.1%) and 933 (18.9%) patients, respectively. The 30-day clinical events (vascular and bleeding complications, stroke, acute kidney injury, and mortality) were evaluated and defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. Clinical outcomes were analyzed according to the secondary access (transfemoral versus transradial) in the overall population and in a propensity score-matched population involving 2978 transfemoral and 928 transradial patients.
Results: Related-access VC occurred in 834 (16.9%) patients (major VC, 5.7%) and were related to the secondary access in 172 (3.5%) patients (major VC, 1.3%). The rate of VC related to the secondary access was higher in the transfemoral group (VC, 4.1% versus 0.9%, P<0.001; major VC, 1.6% versus 0%, P<0.001). In the propensity score-matched population, VC related to the secondary access remained higher in the transfemoral group (4.7% versus 0.9%, P<0.001; major VC, 1.8% versus 0%, P<0.001), which also exhibited a higher rate of major/life-threatening bleeding events (1.0% versus 0%, P<0.001). Significant differences between secondary access groups were observed regarding the rates of 30-day stroke (transfemoral: 3.1%, transradial: 1.6%; P=0.043), acute kidney injury (transfemoral: 9.9%, transradial: 5.7%; P<0.001), and mortality (transfemoral: 4.0%, transradial: 2.4%, P=0.047).
Conclusions: The use of transradial approach as secondary access in TAVR procedures was associated with a significant reduction in vascular and bleeding complications and improved 30-day outcomes. Future randomized studies are warranted.
Keywords: acute kidney injury; bleeding; femoral artery; radial artery; stroke; transcatheter aortic valve replacement; vascular complications.
Comment in
-
Letter by Gaudino and Lawton Regarding Article, "Comparison of Transfemoral Versus Transradial Secondary Access in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement".Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Apr;13(4):e009186. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.120.009186. Epub 2020 Apr 13. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020. PMID: 32279563 No abstract available.
-
Response by Junquera and Rodés-Cabau to Letter Regarding Article, "Comparison of Transfemoral Versus Transradial Secondary Access in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement".Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Apr;13(4):e009194. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.120.009194. Epub 2020 Apr 13. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020. PMID: 32279566 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Suprasternal Versus Transfemoral Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From a Propensity Score Matched Analysis.J Am Heart Assoc. 2021 Aug 17;10(16):e020491. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.020491. Epub 2021 Aug 11. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021. PMID: 34376060 Free PMC article.
-
Ultrasound Guidance to Reduce Vascular and Bleeding Complications of Percutaneous Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison.J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Mar 17;9(6):e014916. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.014916. Epub 2020 Mar 16. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020. PMID: 32172643 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of outcomes with surgical cut-down versus percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: TAVR transfemoral access comparisons between surgical cut-down and percutaneous approach.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Jun;91(7):1354-1362. doi: 10.1002/ccd.27377. Epub 2017 Oct 10. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018. PMID: 29024382
-
Transcarotid versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2024 Nov;68:92-97. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2024.04.008. Epub 2024 Apr 4. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2024. PMID: 38594159
-
Dose approach matter? A meta-analysis of outcomes following transfemoral versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement.BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2021 Jul 28;21(1):358. doi: 10.1186/s12872-021-02158-4. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2021. PMID: 34320946 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Updates on the Latest Surgical Approach of the Aortic Stenosis.J Clin Med. 2021 Oct 31;10(21):5140. doi: 10.3390/jcm10215140. J Clin Med. 2021. PMID: 34768660 Free PMC article.
-
Same-Day Discharge After Transcatheter Native Aortic and Mitral Valve-in-Valve Replacement.JACC Case Rep. 2020 Nov 18;2(14):2199-2201. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.036. eCollection 2020 Nov 18. JACC Case Rep. 2020. PMID: 34317138 Free PMC article.
-
The "lend a hand" external bypass technique: External radial to femoral bypass for antegrade perfusion of an ischemic limb with occlusive large bore sheath - A novel and favorable approach.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Nov;96(6):E614-E620. doi: 10.1002/ccd.29187. Epub 2020 Aug 5. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020. PMID: 32757357 Free PMC article.
-
Feasibility, safety and clinical impact of a less-invasive totally-endovascular (LITE) technique for transfemoral TAVI: A 1000 patients single-centre experience.Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2024 Oct 9;55:101523. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2024.101523. eCollection 2024 Dec. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2024. PMID: 39445119 Free PMC article.
-
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Access Sites: Same Goals, Distinct Aspects, Various Merits and Demerits.J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2023 Dec 22;11(1):4. doi: 10.3390/jcdd11010004. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2023. PMID: 38248874 Free PMC article. Review.