The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Volume 138, Issue 5 , Pages 1073-1080, November 2009

Survival after transapical and transfemoral aortic valve implantation: Talking about two different patient populations

Clinic for Cardiovascular Surgery, German Heart Center Munich, Munich, Germany

Received 23 April 2009; received in revised form 22 June 2009; accepted 13 July 2009. published online 18 September 2009.

Objective

Recently, suspicion had been expressed that survival might be impaired after antegrade transapical as opposed to retrograde transfemoral valve implantation in high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. We analyzed survival in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with special emphasis on the access site for implantation.

Methods

Between June 2007 and February 2009, 203 high-risk patients (EuroSCORE, 22% ± 14%; mean age, 81 ± 7 years) underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation via a transapical (n = 50) or transfemoral (n = 153) access. The transapical implantation technique was chosen only in patients who had no access through diseased femoral arteries.

Results

Thirty-day survival was 88.8% after transfemoral versus 91.7% after transapical implantation (P = .918). The transapical group had a significantly higher preoperative brain natriuretic peptide value and a significantly higher incidence of peripheral vessel, cerebrovascular, and coronary heart disease. Death within 30 days was valve related in 25% (transapical) and 31% (transfemoral), cardiac in 25% and 13%, and noncardiac in 50% and 56%, respectively (no significant difference). Complications specific to the access site (peripheral vessel injury or apex complications) occurred in both groups, whereas neurologic events did not occur in the transapical group (P = .041).

Conclusions

Our patient and access site selection process, with the transfemoral technique considered the access site of first choice, results in comparable survival and morbidity for either transfemoral or transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Both techniques are associated with certain access site–specific complications that require highly qualified management. The neurologic risk profile of the patients should be included in the decision-making process before transcatheter aortic valve implantation, inasmuch as neurologic events may be reduced with the transapical access.

CTSNet classification: 28, 35

Abbreviations and Acronyms: AVR, aortic valve replacement, BNP, brain natriuretic peptide, POD, postoperative day, STS, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, TAVI, transcatheter aortic valve implantation

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Read at the Eighty-ninth Annual Meeting of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Boston, Massachusetts, May 9–13, 2009.

PII: S0022-5223(09)00978-7

doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.07.031

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Volume 138, Issue 5 , Pages 1073-1080, November 2009