Key result
Crossover to conscious sedation during transfemoral TAVI is linked to ~2.7-fold higher 30-day major events.
Why the study?
Approximately 20% of patients randomized to a sedation-free minimalist strategy for transfemoral TAVI in the DOUBLE-CHOICE trial required intra-procedural crossover to conscious sedation, and the clinical profile and prognostic implications of this conversion were unclear.
Does intra-procedural crossover from local anesthesia to conscious sedation increase 30-day adverse composite outcomes in patients undergoing minimalist transfemoral TAVI?
RCT (n=370)
Randomized (subanalysis of the minimalist approach arm)
Yes
Does intra-procedural crossover from local anesthesia to conscious sedation increase 30-day adverse composite outcomes in patients undergoing minimalist transfemoral TAVI?
Intra-procedural crossover from local anesthesia to conscious sedation occurs in nearly 20% of minimalist transfemoral TAVI procedures, is predicted by moderate-to-severe frailty and study center, and is independently associated with a more than threefold increased odds of 30-day adverse clinical outcomes.
Crossover was associated with higher adverse events; leaves open whether avoiding crossover improves outcomes.
Background The DOUBLE-CHOICE trial showed that a sedation-free minimalist strategy for transfemoral TAVI is noninferior to standard of care (SoC), but approximately 20% of patients required intra-procedural crossover. The clinical profile and prognostic implications of such conversion are unclear. Purpose To analyze the clinical impact and determinants of crossover from local anesthesia to conscious sedation during transfemoral TAVI. Methods This subanalysis included all 370 patients randomized to the minimalist approach (including local anesthesia only) in DOUBLE-CHOICE. Crossover to SoC was defined as any systemic administration of sedative or anesthetic medication during the procedure. Outcomes at 30 days were compared between patients who completed TAVI under local anesthesia and those undergoing crossover. Multivariable logistic regression assessed the independent association between crossover and the primary composite endpoint (death, vascular and bleeding complications, infections requiring antibiotics, and neurologic events) and identified baseline predictors of crossover. Results Overall, 72 of 370 patients (19.5%) required crossover. Baseline characteristics were generally similar, although prior stroke was more frequent among crossover patients. Crossover was associated with longer procedure times, greater use of invasive adjuncts, and lower technical (83.3% vs 98.0%) and device success (67.2% vs 87.5%; both p<0.001). The primary endpoint occurred in 38.7% of crossover versus 18.9% of non-crossover patients (odds ratio [OR] 2.7; 95% CI 1.5–4.9; p<0.001). Delirium was also more common after crossover (14.3% vs 3.6%; OR 4.5; 95% CI 1.7–12; p=0.003). In multivariable analysis, crossover remained independently associated with the primary endpoint (adjusted OR 3.28; 95% CI 1.60–6.70; p=0.001). Moderate-to-severe frailty and study center were independent predictors of crossover. Conclusions In sedation-free transfemoral TAVI, intra-procedural crossover to SoC occurs in one in five patients and is associated with adverse 30-day outcomes. Crossover should be regarded as a marker of procedural vulnerability rather than a benign deviation from a minimalist strategy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Feistritzer et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Transfemoral TAVI (n=370). Intra-procedural crossover to conscious sedation / standard of care vs. Completed TAVI under local anesthesia only (non-crossover) was evaluated on Composite of death, vascular and bleeding complications, infections requiring antibiotics, and neurologic events at 30 days (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.5-4.9, p=<0.001). Intra-procedural crossover from local anesthesia to conscious sedation during transfemoral TAVI increased the 30-day primary composite endpoint (38.7% vs 18.9%; OR 2.7; 95% CI 1.5-4.9; p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: