Key result
Suprasternal access for TAVR resulted in similar in-hospital mortality compared with transfemoral access (1.1% vs 0.6%; OR 1.80; 95% CI 0.11-29.06; P=0.680).
Why the study?
Suprasternal access is an alternative access strategy for TAVR, but it had never been compared with transfemoral TAVR.
Does suprasternal access provide comparable safety and early clinical outcomes to transfemoral access in patients undergoing TAVR?
Observational (n=248)
Yes
Does suprasternal access provide comparable safety and early clinical outcomes to transfemoral access in patients undergoing TAVR?
Odds Ratio: 1.8 (95% CI 0.11–29.06)
Absolute Event Rate: 1.1% vs 0.6%
p-value: p=0.680
Suprasternal access for TAVR is a safe and feasible alternative to transfemoral access, yielding comparable short-term clinical outcomes.
Suprasternal TAVR access was associated with similar mortality; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical consideration.
Background Suprasternal access is an alternative access strategy for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) where the innominate artery is cannulated from an incision above the sternal notch. To date, suprasternal access has never been compared with transfemoral TAVR. Thus, we sought to assess safety, feasibility, and early clinical outcomes between suprasternal and transfemoral access for patients undergoing TAVR. Methods and Results We evaluated patients from 2 institutional prospective, observational registries containing 1348 patients. Patients were selected in a 2:1 ratio (transfemoral:suprasternal) on the basis of propensity score matching. The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes included the incidence of ischemic stroke, major bleeding, vascular injury, left bundle‐branch block, and permanent pacemaker implantation at 30‐day follow‐up. Propensity score matching identified 89 patients undergoing suprasternal TAVR and 159 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR suitable for analysis. There was no significant difference between suprasternal TAVR and transfemoral TAVR with respect to in‐hospital mortality (1.1% versus 0.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.80; 95% CI, 0.11–29.06; P =0.680). No patients in either cohort suffered an ischemic stroke. The incidence of major bleeding (2.2% versus 2.5%; OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.16–4.96; P =0.895) and vascular injury (1.1% versus 1.9%; OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.06–5.77; P =0.651) did not differ significantly. The frequency of left bundle‐branch block (9.4% versus 15.8%; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.24–1.30; P =0.177) and permanent pacemaker implantation (11.2% versus 5.9%; OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.75–5.45; P =0.169) were not statistically significantly different. Conclusions Suprasternal TAVR was safe and achieved promising short‐term clinical outcomes when compared with transfemoral TAVR. Future studies seeking to identify the optimal alternative access site should evaluate suprasternal TAVR access alongside other substitutes for transfemoral TAVR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brener et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (n=248). Suprasternal access vs. Transfemoral access was evaluated on In-hospital mortality (OR 1.80, 95% CI 0.11-29.06, p=0.680). Suprasternal access for TAVR resulted in similar in-hospital mortality compared with transfemoral access (1.1% vs 0.6%; OR 1.80; 95% CI 0.11-29.06; P=0.680).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: