Key result
Trans-subclavian TAVI was associated with similar overall all-cause mortality compared to trans-apical TAVI (HR 0.678, 95% CI 0.360-1.280, p=0.231) in patients unsuitable for transfemoral access.
Why the study?
Many patients are unsuitable for conventional femoral TAVI, but there is limited evidence regarding which alternative approach yields the best clinical outcomes.
Does trans-subclavian TAVI improve mortality or procedural outcomes compared to trans-apical TAVI in patients unsuitable for transfemoral access?
Cohort (n=140)
No
Does trans-subclavian TAVI improve mortality or procedural outcomes compared to trans-apical TAVI in patients unsuitable for transfemoral access?
Hazard Ratio: 0.678 (95% CI 0.36–1.28)
p-value: p=0.231
Both trans-subclavian and trans-apical access are viable alternatives for non-transfemoral TAVI with similar short- and long-term mortality, despite differences in baseline risk and valve types used.
BACKGROUND: Many patients are unsuitable for conventional femoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) but there is limited evidence as to which alternative approach has the best outcomes. We compared clinical outcomes in patients undergoing trans-subclavian (TS) or trans-apical (TA) TAVI. METHODS: This was a national retrospective observational study of patients undergoing surgical TAVI in Scotland between January 2013 and March 2020. The pre-operative patient characteristics, intraoperative details and post-operative outcomes were compared between TS and TA cohorts using data from the National Institute of Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) registry. RESULTS: Among 1055 patients who underwent TAVI, TS or TA access was used in 50 (4.7%) and 90 (8.5%) patients respectively. Self-expanding Medtronic Evolut R valves were used in 84% of TS procedures, while balloon-expandable Edwards SAPIEN valves were used in all TA procedures. The TS group had a lower mean logistic EuroSCORE than the TA group (27.31 ± 19.44% vs 34.92 ± 19.61% p = 0.029). The TS approach was associated with a higher incidence of moderate postprocedural aortic regurgitation (12.5% vs 2.4%, p = 0.025). There was no significant difference in 30-day, 1-year or overall all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Both trans-subclavian and trans-apical access are viable approaches for patients requiring non-transfemoral TAVI. Differences in peri-procedural indices reflect the disparate patient populations and factors governing prosthesis choice, and short- and long-term mortality was similar.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tomala et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis (n=140). Trans-subclavian (TS) TAVI vs. Trans-apical (TA) TAVI was evaluated on Overall all-cause mortality (HR 0.678, 95% CI 0.360-1.280, p=0.231). Trans-subclavian TAVI was associated with similar overall all-cause mortality compared to trans-apical TAVI (HR 0.678, 95% CI 0.360-1.280, p=0.231) in patients unsuitable for transfemoral access.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: