Key result
Surgical cutdown and percutaneous access for TF-TAVR resulted in identical rates of major and minor vascular complications at 30 days (26.7% in each group).
Why the study?
Does percutaneous access with closure devices reduce vascular complications compared to surgical cutdown in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR?
Population
30 consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR)
Comparison
Percutaneous access with closure devices vs Surgical cutdown access
Design
RCT, Randomized to either surgical cutdown or percutaneous access
Follow-up
30 days
Authors
Loading...
Should not change TF-TAVR access practices; pilot data leaves open need for larger trials.
RCT (n=30)
randomized
Does percutaneous access with closure devices reduce vascular complications compared to surgical cutdown in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR?
Absolute Event Rate: 26.7% vs 26.7%
In a small pilot RCT, percutaneous access for transfemoral TAVR demonstrated equivalent safety to surgical cutdown regarding 30-day vascular complications.
Holper et al. (2013) conducted an RCT in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) (n=30). Surgical cutdown vs. Percutaneous access was evaluated on Composite of major and minor vascular complications at 30 days. Surgical cutdown and percutaneous access for TF-TAVR resulted in identical rates of major and minor vascular complications at 30 days (26.7% in each group).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: