These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Expandable sheath for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: procedural outcomes and complications.
    Author: Borz B, Durand E, Tron C, Godin M, Canville A, Hauville C, Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H.
    Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2014 May 01; 83(6):E227-32. PubMed ID: 24403004.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: It is currently unknown whether the expandable sheath (e-sheath) for transfemoral Edwards transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has a lower rate of access complications than the 18/19F fixed size sheath (f-sheath). Our aim was to compare the incidence of procedural complications when using f-sheath vs. e-sheath during TAVR. METHODS: We included 162 consecutive patients, implanted with the Edwards SAPIEN XT valve in our center. Access closure was obtained with the Prostar system in all cases. E-sheath was used in 80 patients (49%). RESULTS: Minimal ilio-femoral diameter was comparable in e-sheath and f-sheath groups: 6.7 (6.1-7.7) vs. 7 (6.2-8) mm, P = 0.25, as was the frequency of peripheral artery disease: 12.5% vs. 13.4%, P = 1.0. VARC major vascular complications rate was similar in the 2 groups: e-sheath 7 (8.8%) vs. f-sheath 6 (7.3%), P = 0.74, as was the incidence of minor vascular complications: 8 (10%) vs. 14 (17.1%), P = 0.19, life-threatening bleeding: 6 (7.5%) vs. 6 (7.3%), P = 0.96, major and minor bleeding and use of covered vascular stents: 9 (11%) vs. 6 (7.5%), P = 0.59. CONCLUSIONS: The e-sheath for TAVR with the Edwards valve did not show an advantage over the f-sheath in reducing vascular and bleeding complications.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]