Safety and efficacy of minimalist approach in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insights from the Optimized transCathEter vAlvular interventioN–Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (OCEAN-TAVI) registry†
Open Access
- 31 October 2017
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery
- Vol. 26 (3), 420-424
- https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivx355
Abstract
Favourable results have been reported for monitored anaesthesia care that includes local anaesthesia and conscious sedation [minimalist approach (MA)] for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, the efficacy of MA is still controversial in Japan. We describe our experience from a Japanese multicentre registry. Between October 2013 and April 2016, 1215 consecutive Japanese patients with symptomatic, severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR with self-expandable or balloon-expandable valves were prospectively included in the Optimized transCathEter vAlvular intervention–Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (OCEAN-TAVI) registry. Of these patients, we retrospectively reviewed 921 consecutive patients who underwent elective transfemoral-TAVR. We evaluated the perioperative results of MA-TAVR and non-minimalist approach (NMA) TAVR using propensity score matching analysis. A total of 118 patients underwent MA-TAVR, and 802 patients underwent NMA-TAVR [median age 84 vs 85 years, P = 0.25; Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score 7.6 vs 6.4, P = 0.01]. One hundred eighteen matched pairs were compared after propensity score matching. In-hospital mortality and stroke/transient ischaemic attack were not significantly different between the MA-TAVR and the NMA-TAVR groups (2.5% vs 0.8%, P = 0.3; 1.7% vs 0.8%, P = 0.6, respectively). Major or life-threatening bleeding and the transfusion rate were significantly lower in the MA-TAVR group (3.4% vs 17%, P = 0.003; 6.8% vs 29%, P = 0.0002, respectively). The total intensive care unit days and length of hospital stay were significantly lower in the MA-TAVR group (P ≤ 0.0002). MA-TAVR has similar results to NMA-TAVR in terms of mortality and stroke in this Japanese multicentre registry. Shorter procedure time and hospital stays were seen in the MA-TAVR group. MA-TAVR is as safe and effective as NMA-TAVR.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk PatientsNew England Journal of Medicine, 2016
- Minimalist transcatheter aortic valve replacement: The new standard for surgeons and cardiologists using transfemoral access?The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2015
- Comparison of Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Performed in the Catheterization Laboratory (Minimalist Approach) Versus Hybrid Operating Room (Standard Approach)КАРДИОЛОГИЯ УЗБЕКИСТАНА, 2014
- Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding ProsthesisNew England Journal of Medicine, 2014
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Using a Self-Expanding Bioprosthesis in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis at Extreme Risk for SurgeryJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2014
- Effect of Local Anesthetic Management With Conscious Sedation in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve ImplantationThe American Journal of Cardiology, 2013
- Local versus general anesthesia for transfemoral aortic valve implantationClinical Research in Cardiology, 2011
- Results of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair with general, regional, and local/monitored anesthesia care in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program databaseJournal of Vascular Surgery, 2011
- Transcatheter versus Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in High-Risk PatientsNew England Journal of Medicine, 2011
- Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Implantation for Aortic Stenosis in Patients Who Cannot Undergo SurgeryNew England Journal of Medicine, 2010