Key result
Transfemoral access for TAVR showed no significant difference in in-hospital mortality compared with transapical access among diabetic patients (3.5% vs. 4.4%, OR 0.79, p=0.11).
Why the study?
Outcomes comparing transfemoral versus transapical access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in diabetic patients were unknown.
Does transfemoral access compared to transapical access improve in-hospital mortality in diabetic patients undergoing TAVR?
Observational (n=14,543)
Yes
Does transfemoral access compared to transapical access improve in-hospital mortality in diabetic patients undergoing TAVR?
Odds Ratio: 0.79 (95% CI 0.6–1.04)
Absolute Event Rate: 3.5% vs 4.4%
p-value: p=0.11
Transfemoral and transapical TAVR have similar overall in-hospital mortality in diabetic patients, but transfemoral access may be associated with higher mortality and complications in the subset of patients with complicated diabetes.
Similar in-hospital mortality after TF-TAVR versus TA-TAVR in matched diabetics; leaves open optimal access route pending randomized data.
INTRODUCTION: The outcomes of transfemoral (TF) compared with transapical (TA) access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in diabetics are unknown. METHODS: We queried the NIS database (2011-2014) to identify diabetics who underwent TAVR. We performed a propensity matching analysis comparing TF-TAVR versus TA-TAVR. RESULTS: The analysis included 14.555 diabetics who underwent TAVR. After matching, in-hospital mortality was not different between TF-TAVR and TA-TAVR. (3.5 vs. 4.4%, p = 0.11). TF-TAVR was associated with lower rates of cardiogenic shock (2.7 vs. 4.7%, p = 0.02), use of mechanical circulatory support (2.0 vs. 2.9%, p = 0.03), acute renal failure (17.8 vs. 26.5%, p < 0.001), major bleeding (35.8 vs. 40.7%, p < 0.001) and respiratory complications (1.1 vs. 4.4%, p < 0.001) compared with TA-TAVR. However, TF-TAVR was associated with a higher rate of vascular complications (2.9 vs. 0.9%, p < 0.001), cardiac tamponade (0.5 vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001), complete heart block (10.8 vs. 7.7%, p < 0.001) and pacemaker insertion (11.8 vs. 8.3%, p < 0.001). There was no difference between both groups in acute stroke (1.8 vs. 2.2%, p = 0.39), hemodialysis (2.0 vs. 2.2%, p = 0.71), and ventricular arrhythmias (4.9 vs. 4.2%, p = 0.19). Notably, TF-TAVR was associated with higher mortality, acute stroke, AKI, hemodialysis, PCI, and respiratory complications in complicated diabetics compared with non-complicated diabetics. CONCLUSIONS: This observational analysis showed no difference in-hospital mortality between TF-TAVR and TA-TAVR among diabetic patients. Studies exploring the optimal access for TAVR among diabetics are recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elbadawi et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Diabetes mellitus and severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR (n=14,543). Transfemoral access for TAVR vs. Transapical access for TAVR was evaluated on All-cause in-hospital mortality (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.60-1.04, p=0.11). Transfemoral access for TAVR showed no significant difference in in-hospital mortality compared with transapical access among diabetic patients (3.5% vs. 4.4%, OR 0.79, p=0.11).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: