AI Article Synopsis

  • Suprasternal access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) involves cannulating the innominate artery through an incision above the sternal notch, and it has not been directly compared to the more commonly used transfemoral access until now.
  • In this study, 89 patients underwent suprasternal TAVR and 159 patients underwent transfemoral TAVR to evaluate safety and early clinical outcomes, with no significant difference in in-hospital mortality or major complications between the two methods.
  • The findings suggest that suprasternal TAVR is safe with promising short-term outcomes, leading to recommendations for further studies to explore its effectiveness compared to other alternative access techniques.

Article Abstract

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; =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; =0.895) and vascular injury (1.1% versus 1.9%; OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.06-5.77; =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; =0.177) and permanent pacemaker implantation (11.2% versus 5.9%; OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.75-5.45; =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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8475036PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.020491DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

transfemoral tavr
20
suprasternal tavr
16
propensity score
12
patients undergoing
12
tavr
11
suprasternal
8
transfemoral access
8
transcatheter aortic
8
aortic valve
8
valve replacement
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!