Key result
Unilateral-access TF-TAVR is linked to similar vascular complications but less bleeding versus bilateral access.
Why the study?
Vascular complications remain prevalent in TF-TAVR with a significant proportion linked to secondary arterial access, motivating evaluation of placing the second sheath ipsilaterally to reduce complications.
Does unilateral-access reduce vascular complications compared to bilateral-access in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement?
Observational (n=217)
No
Does unilateral-access reduce vascular complications compared to bilateral-access in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement?
Unilateral-access TF-TAVR is a safe and feasible alternative to bilateral-access, potentially reducing bleeding and overall complications while maintaining bailout capabilities.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Unilateral TF-TAVR access was associated with similar vascular complications; leaves open bleeding benefit pending randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Vascular complications remain prevalent on transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) with a significant proportion related to the secondary arterial access. We hypothesized that placing the second sheath ipsilateral and distal to the delivery sheath could reduce vascular complications with similar safety and efficacy. OBJECTIVES: Comparing vascular complications and clinical outcomes when placing the secondary arterial sheath in the ipsilateral (unilateral-access) versus in the contralateral (bilateral-access) femoral artery during TF-TAVR. METHODS: Patients who underwent TF-TAVR using unilateral-access as first-choice approach were retrospectively compared with a contemporaneous bilateral-access group. The primary endpoint was the incidence of vascular complications related to femoral access according to the VARC-3 criteria. A propensity-score analysis was performed accounting for the differences in clinical, vascular, and procedural characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 217 patients were included, of whom 150 (69.1 %) underwent TF-TAVR through bilateral- and 67 (30.9 %) through unilateral-access. Vascular complications occurred in 16.0 % of the bilateral-access group and 10.4 % of the unilateral-access group (p = 0.280). The unilateral-access group achieved high procedural success with normalization of peak aortic velocity and low rates of paravalvular leaks, valve migration and pacemaker requirement. After propensity-score matching, the overall complications rate was superior in the bilateral-access group (54.4 % vs 35.1 %, p = 0.038) due to a trend of higher vascular complications (26.3 % vs 12.3 %, p = 0.058) and a significant higher occurrence of bleeding complications (17.5 % vs 1.8 %, p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Unilateral-access TF-TAVR is feasible, safe, and potentially enhances procedural efficiency and patient satisfaction while maintaining the capacity for bailout interventions in managing vascular complications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pereira et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Severe aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) (n=217). Unilateral-access TF-TAVR vs. Bilateral-access TF-TAVR was evaluated on Incidence of vascular complications related to femoral access according to VARC-3 criteria (p=0.471). Unilateral-access TF-TAVR resulted in a similar rate of vascular complications compared to bilateral-access (10.4% vs 14.0%, p=0.471), while propensity-matched analysis showed significantly fewer bleeding complications.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: