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: In-Hospital Outcomes with Transfemoral Versus Transapical Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease.
    Author: Elbadawi A, Naqvi SY, Saad M, Elgendy IY, Mahmoud AA, Zainal A, Megaly M, Almahmoud MF, Altaweel A, Kleiman N, Abbott JD.
    Journal: Cardiovasc Revasc Med; 2020 May; 21(5):604-609. PubMed ID: 31757744.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data regarding outcomes with transfemoral (TF) versus transapical (TA) access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). METHODS: We queried the national inpatient sample database (NIS) (2012-2013) to identify patients with PAD who underwent TAVR. We conducted a propensity matching analysis using 25 clinical variables to compare TF-TAVR versus TA-TAVR. The main outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: The analysis included 22,349 patients who underwent TAVR, among those 6692 (29.9%) had PAD. In the matched cohort, in-hospital mortality was similar between TF-TAVR and TA-TAVR groups (4.8% vs. 5.1%, OR 0.95; 95%CI 0.74-1.21). TF-TAVR was associated with lower rates of cardiogenic shock (OR 0.64; 95%CI 0.50-0.82), use of mechanical circulatory support (OR 0.56; 95%CI 0.42-0.75), acute kidney injury (OR 0.76; 95%CI 0.67-0.86), hemodialysis (OR 0.51; 95%CI 0.36-0.71), major bleeding (OR 0.72; 95%CI 0.64-0.80), blood transfusion (OR 0.65; 95%CI 0.58-0.73), discharge to a skilled nursing facility (OR 0.61; 95%CI 0.54-0.68) as well as shorter length of hospital stay (8.13 ± 6.76 vs. 10.11 ± 7.80 days) compared with TA-TAVR. However, TF-TAVR was associated with higher rate of vascular complications (11.7% vs. 3.7%, OR 3.40; 95%CI 2.63-4.38), complete heart block (OR 1.52; 95%CI 1.23-1.87), and pacemaker insertion (OR = 1.58; 95%CI: 1.28-1.94). There was no difference between both groups in the rate of cerebrovascular accidents (OR 1.26; 95%CI 0.93-1.72). CONCLUSION: In this observational analysis from a large national database, there was no difference in in-hospital mortality between TF-TAVR and TA-TAVR among patients with PAD. Further studies are encouraged to identify the optimal access for TAVR in patients with PAD.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]