Transaortic Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation as a second choice over the Transapical access

Show full item record



Permalink

http://hdl.handle.net/10138/161330

Citation

Ropponen , J , Vainikka , T , Sinisalo , J , Rapola , J , Laine , M & Ihlberg , L 2016 , ' Transaortic Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation as a second choice over the Transapical access ' , Scandinavian Journal of Surgery , vol. 105 , no. 1 , pp. 35-41 . https://doi.org/10.1177/1457496915575832

Title: Transaortic Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation as a second choice over the Transapical access
Author: Ropponen, J.; Vainikka, T.; Sinisalo, J.; Rapola, J.; Laine, M.; Ihlberg, L.
Contributor: University of Helsinki, III kirurgian klinikka
University of Helsinki, Clinicum
University of Helsinki, Clinicum
University of Helsinki, Kardiologian yksikkö
University of Helsinki, III kirurgian klinikka
Date: 2016-03
Language: eng
Number of pages: 7
Belongs to series: Scandinavian Journal of Surgery
ISSN: 1457-4969
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10138/161330
Abstract: Background and Aims: In this report, we present our experience with the transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the SAPIEN valve. The procedural success, 30-day outcome, and survival up to 2years are compared with the transapical access performed in patients in our institution. Material and Methods: Of a total of 282 transcatheter aortic valve implantation patients, 100 consecutive patients had a non-transfemoral approach. The transaortic and transapical access routes were used in 36 and 64 patients, respectively. The transaortic group had a higher mean logistic EuroSCORE (32.6 vs 25.2, p=0.021) and more patients with left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% (33.3% vs 14.1%, p=0.023). Results: The respective technical success rates for the transaortic and transapical groups were 100% and 95.2% (p=NS). There were significantly more perioperative hemodynamic problems necessitating cardiopulmonary resuscitation or mechanical circulatory support in the transapical group (18.8% vs 2.8%, p=0.023). The transaortic group had a slightly shorter hospital stay (7 vs 8days, p=0.018). The 30-day mortality was 8.6% and 10.9% in the transaortic and transapical group, respectively (p=NS). Combined safety outcome was similar in both groups at 30days. The respective 1-year survival rates for the transaortic and transapical groups were 71.5% and 68.3%, respectively (p=NS). Conclusion: The trans transcatheter aortic valve implantation is a considerable choice to transapical approach. Despite a higher risk patient cohort, the clinical outcome is at least comparable to the transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation, and it can be utilized as a second choice for patients with prohibitive iliac-femoral anatomy for transfemoral access.
Subject: Heart diseases
aortic valve stenosis
heart surgical procedure
cardiac valve prosthesis
transcatheter aortic valve implantation
minimally invasive surgical procedures
HIGH-RISK PATIENTS
EXPERIENCE
REPLACEMENT
3121 General medicine, internal medicine and other clinical medicine
3126 Surgery, anesthesiology, intensive care, radiology
Rights:


Files in this item

Total number of downloads: Loading...

Files Size Format View
35.full.pdf 405.2Kb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record