Circulation Journal
Online ISSN : 1347-4820
Print ISSN : 1346-9843
ISSN-L : 1346-9843

This article has now been updated. Please use the final version.

Comparison of Transcarotid vs. Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
Masazumi WatanabeShinya TakahashiHironori YamaokaTaijiro SuedaAntonio PiperataXavier ZirphileLionel LerouxJulien PeltanLouis Labrousse
Author information
JOURNAL FREE ACCESS FULL-TEXT HTML Advance online publication

Article ID: CJ-18-0530

Details
Abstract

Background:Recently, the carotid artery has been used as an alternative approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this study was to prove the safety and feasibility of transcarotid (TC) vs. transfemoral (TF) TAVI.

Methods and Results: This retrospective study enrolled 726 consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. All patients underwent TC-TAVI or TF-TAVI at Hôpital Haut-Lévèque, Bordeaux Heart University Hospital between September 2012 and October 2017. The TC-TAVI (n=83) and TF-TAVI (n=643) groups were compared statistically. The EuroSCORE II was significantly higher (8.2±6.7 vs. 6.4±5.5; P=0.007) and rates of current smoking, dyslipidemia and peripheral arterial disease were higher in the TC-TAVI than TF-TAVI group. All TC-TAVIs and 9.3% of TF-TAVIs were performed under general anesthesia. Radiation time was significantly shorter in the TC-TAVI than TF-TAVI group (14.5±6.0 vs. 23.0±10.8 min; P<0.001). Postimplant balloon valvuloplasty was performed more frequently in the TF-TAVI than TC-TAVI group (7.2% vs. 19.4%; P=0.006). Postoperative echocardiographic data were similar between the 2 groups, and there were no significant differences in 30-day mortality (8.4% vs. 5.0%; P=0.189) or stroke rate (1.2% vs. 2.6%; P=0.428) between the TF-TAVI and TC-TAVI groups.

Conclusions:The feasibility and 30-day safety of TC-TAVI and TF-TAVI are similar. When TF-TAVI is not suitable anatomically for a particular patient, TC-TAVI is a preferable alternative.

Content from these authors
© 2018 THE JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOCIETY
feedback
Top