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: Alternative access for balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement: comparison of the transaortic approach using right anterior thoracotomy to partial J-sternotomy.
    Author: Okuyama K, Jilaihawi H, Mirocha J, Nakamura M, Ramzy D, Makkar R, Cheng W.
    Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2015 Mar; 149(3):789-97. PubMed ID: 25455461.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: For transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), transaortic (TAo) and transapical (TA) approaches are major alternatives in cases unsuitable for the transfemoral approach. Partial J-sternotomy is a widely used access for TAo. However, redo sternotomy or right-sided aorta may preclude this access, and right anterior thoracotomy is potentially beneficial in these cases. This study sought to evaluate the TAo approach using thoracotomy (T-TAo) and compare it to the TAo approach using a sternotomy (S-TAo) and a TA approach. METHODS: In a large single-center series, consecutive TAVR patients were studied. Procedural/clinical outcomes of the T-TAo, S-TAo, and TA groups were compared up to a 30 days follow-up period. RESULTS: Of 872 TAVR patients, 22 (2.5%) were T-TAo, 29 (3.3%) were S-TAo, and 86 (9.9%) were TA approaches. The TA group showed the shortest intensive care unit stay, with a median 2.0 (interquartile range 1.0-3.0) days: for T-TAo it was 3.0 (2.0-5.3) and for S-TAo, 3.0 (3.5-5.0) (P < .001). Although it was not statistically significant, the T-TAo group showed numerically less mortality (1 [4.5%], 5 [17.9%], and 8 [9.4%] in the T-TAo, S-TAo, and TA groups, respectively; P = .30), with no difference in other endpoints, including stroke/transient ischemic attack, rehospitalization, and paravalvular leak. Additionally, computed tomographic assessment revealed that T-TAo facilitated a more coaxial approach than S-TAo: 20.4° ± 8.2° versus 30.6° ± 8.2° (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: T-TAo is a feasible approach that can provide greater coaxiality. This option allows tailored and optimal access to the individual patient and facilitates a treatment strategy in nontransfemoral TAVR patients.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]