Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 63(06): 487-492
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1549355
Original Cardiovascular
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Benefits of “Best for Groin” Strategy Leading to a Transapical TAVI Dominance

Guram Imnadze
1   Schuechtermann Klinik, Bad Rothenfelde, Germany
,
Norbert Franz
1   Schuechtermann Klinik, Bad Rothenfelde, Germany
2   University Witten/Herdecke, Germany
,
Steffen Hofmann
1   Schuechtermann Klinik, Bad Rothenfelde, Germany
,
Marek Kowalski
1   Schuechtermann Klinik, Bad Rothenfelde, Germany
,
Michael Billion
1   Schuechtermann Klinik, Bad Rothenfelde, Germany
,
Abbas Ferdosi
1   Schuechtermann Klinik, Bad Rothenfelde, Germany
,
Henning Warnecke
1   Schuechtermann Klinik, Bad Rothenfelde, Germany
2   University Witten/Herdecke, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

12 August 2014

12 February 2015

Publication Date:
25 May 2015 (online)

Abstract

Background Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a recognized therapeutic option for high-risk and inoperable patients with aortic valve stenosis. The choice of access route is a matter of debate. We are presenting our 5-year experience of transapical TAVI dominance.

Patients This single-center study includes 575 patients. Two groups were compared: transapical (TA) and transfemoral (TF) with 454 and 121 patients, respectively. Individual access route decision was made by our heart team following a clinical and computed tomography (CT) data based nonbiased strategy. The same team performed all procedures. The mean logistic EuroSCORE was significantly higher in the TA group, however, without difference in STS score. The number of patients with coronary artery disease, previous cardiac surgery, and low left ventricular ejection fraction was higher in the TA group. There were no significant differences in age and presence of other comorbidities.

Results Procedural success in both TA and TF groups was high (97.9% and 97.6%). No patient died during the procedure. Patient survival (30 days: TF, 97.5% vs. TA, 95.7%; 1 year: TF, 94.6% vs. TA, 81.8%; 2 years: TF, 84.7% vs. TA, 76.7%; 3 years: TF, 59.9% vs. TA, 67.8%) and a low TF vascular complication rate (1.6%) are encouraging compared with other registry data.

Conclusion A “no competition” team approach strategy along with an experienced hybrid team leads to fewer vascular complications and better outcomes for both TA and TF TAVI patients.

 
  • References

  • 1 Webb JG, Wood DA. Current status of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 60 (6) 483-492
  • 2 Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Généreux P , et al. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 60 (15) 1438-1454
  • 3 Toggweiler S, Leipsic J, Binder RK , et al. Management of vascular access in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: part 1: basic anatomy, imaging, sheaths, wires, and access routes. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 6 (7) 643-653
  • 4 Li X, Kong M, Jiang D, Dong A. Comparison 30-day clinical complications between transfemoral versus transapical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis: a meta-analysis review. J Cardiothorac Surg 2013; 8: 168
  • 5 Gilard M, Eltchaninoff H, Iung B , et al; FRANCE 2 Investigators. Registry of transcatheter aortic-valve implantation in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2012; 366 (18) 1705-1715
  • 6 Noble S. Transapical aortic valve implantation: a reasonable therapeutic option, but not the only alternative to transfemoral approach. J Thorac Dis 2013; 5 (3) 360-361
  • 7 Walther T, Dewey T, Borger MA , et al. Transapical aortic valve implantation: step by step. Ann Thorac Surg 2009; 87 (1) 276-283
  • 8 Walther T, Kempfert J. Transapical vs. transfemoral aortic valve implantation: Which approach for which patient, from a surgeon's standpoint. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2012; 1 (2) 216-219
  • 9 Litzler PY, Borz B, Smail H , et al. Transapical aortic valve implantation in Rouen: four years' experience with the Edwards transcatheter prosthesis. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 2012; 105 (3) 141-145
  • 10 Beller CJ, Schmack B, Seppelt P , et al. The groin first approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: are we pushing the limits for transapical implantation?. Clin Res Cardiol 2013; 102 (2) 111-117
  • 11 Wilbring M, Tugtekin SM, Alexiou K, Simonis G, Matschke K, Kappert U. Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs conventional aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with previous cardiac surgery: a propensity-score analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2013; 44 (1) 42-47
  • 12 Johansson M, Nozohoor S, Kimblad PO, Harnek J, Olivecrona GK, Sjögren J. Transapical versus transfemoral aortic valve implantation: a comparison of survival and safety. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 91 (1) 57-63
  • 13 Hemmann K, Sirotina M, De Rosa S , et al. The STS score is the strongest predictor of long-term survival following transcatheter aortic valve implantation, whereas access route (transapical versus transfemoral) has no predictive value beyond the periprocedural phase. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2013; 17 (2) 359-364
  • 14 D'Onofrio A, Salizzoni S, Agrifoglio M , et al. Medium term outcomes of transapical aortic valve implantation: results from the Italian Registry of Trans-Apical Aortic Valve Implantation. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 96 (3) 830-835
  • 15 D'Onofrio A, Fusari M, Abbiate N , et al. Transapical aortic valve implantation in high-risk patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 92 (5) 1671-1677
  • 16 Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M , et al; PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med 2010; 363 (17) 1597-1607
  • 17 Toggweiler S, Gurvitch R, Leipsic J , et al. Percutaneous aortic valve replacement: vascular outcomes with a fully percutaneous procedure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 59 (2) 113-118
  • 18 Neragi-Miandoab S, Michler RE. A review of most relevant complications of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. ISRN Cardiol 2013; 2013: 956252
  • 19 Greason KL, Suri RM, Huebner M , et al. Vascular access site injury after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve insertion. J Card Surg 2013; 28 (4) 348-352
  • 20 Eggebrecht H, Schmermund A, Kahlert P, Erbel R, Voigtländer T, Mehta RH. Emergent cardiac surgery during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): a weighted meta-analysis of 9,251 patients from 46 studies. EuroIntervention 2013; 8 (9) 1072-1080
  • 21 Griese DP, Reents W, Kerber S, Diegeler A, Babin-Ebell J. Emergency cardiac surgery during transfemoral and transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation: incidence, reasons, management, and outcome of 411 patients from a single center. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 82 (5) E726-E733
  • 22 D'Ancona G, Pasic M, Unbehaun A, Hetzer R. Permanent pacemaker implantation after transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2011; 13 (4) 373-376
  • 23 Rodés-Cabau J, Dumont E, Boone RH , et al. Cerebral embolism following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: comparison of transfemoral and transapical approaches. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 57 (1) 18-28
  • 24 Ewe SH, Delgado V, Ng AC , et al. Outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: transfemoral versus transapical approach. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 92 (4) 1244-1251
  • 25 Eggebrecht H, Schmermund A, Voigtländer T, Kahlert P, Erbel R, Mehta RH. Risk of stroke after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): a meta-analysis of 10,037 published patients. EuroIntervention 2012; 8 (1) 129-138
  • 26 Mohr FW, Holzhey D, Möllmann H , et al; GARY Executive Board. The German Aortic Valve Registry: 1-year results from 13,680 patients with aortic valve disease. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014; 46 (5) 808-816