RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) is a common complication after transcatheter aortic valve replacement, posing an increased risk of heart failure and mortality. Accurate intraprocedural quantification of PVR is challenging. Both hemodynamic indices and videodensitometry can be used for intraprocedural assessment of PVR. We compared the predictive value of the isolated versus combined use of the hemodynamic index diastolic delta (DD) and videodensitometry for the incidence of relevant PVR 1 month after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this prospective cohort study, patients underwent periprocedural PVR assessment by DD and videodensitometry (using left ventricular outflow tract-aortic regurgitation [LVOT-AR]). Cardiac magnetic resonance served as reference modality for PVR assessment. Relevant PVR was defined as cardiac magnetic resonance-regurgitant fraction >20%. Fifty-one patients were enrolled in this study. Mean age was 80.6±5.2 years and 45.1% of patients were men. Mean LVOT-AR and cardiac magnetic resonance-regurgitant fraction were 8.2%±7.8% and 11.7%±9.6%, respectively. The correlation between DD and LVOT-AR was weak (r=-0.36). DD and LVOT-AR showed a comparable accuracy to predict relevant PVR (area under the curve 0.82, 95% CI: 0.69-0.95 versus area area under the time-density curve 0.80, 95% CI: 0.62-0.99). The combination of DD and LVOT-AR improved the prediction of relevant PVR (area under the time-density curve, 0.90, 95% CI: 0.81-0.99), and resulted in an increased concordance (86.3%) and positive predictive value (75%) compared with DD alone (76.5% and 40%, respectively), or LVOT-AR alone (82.3% and 50%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: DD and videodensitometry are both accurate and feasible modalities for the assessment of PVR after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. The synergistic use of both techniques increases the predictive value for relevant PVR after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04281771.
Asunto(s)
Insuficiencia de la Válvula Aórtica , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Reemplazo de la Válvula Aórtica Transcatéter , Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Insuficiencia de la Válvula Aórtica/etiología , Insuficiencia de la Válvula Aórtica/fisiopatología , Insuficiencia de la Válvula Aórtica/diagnóstico , Insuficiencia de la Válvula Aórtica/diagnóstico por imagen , Reemplazo de la Válvula Aórtica Transcatéter/efectos adversos , Estudios Prospectivos , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Anciano , Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/cirugía , Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/fisiopatología , Válvula Aórtica/cirugía , Válvula Aórtica/diagnóstico por imagen , Válvula Aórtica/fisiopatología , Hemodinámica/fisiología , Diástole , Resultado del Tratamiento , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/diagnósticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: During transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), secondary access is required for angiographic guidance and temporary pacing. The most commonly used secondary access sites are the femoral artery (angiographic guidance) and the femoral vein (temporary pacing). An upper extremity approach using the radial artery and an upper arm vein instead of the lower extremity approach using the femoral artery and femoral vein may reduce clinically relevant secondary access site-related bleeding complications, but robust evidence is lacking. TRIAL DESIGN: The TAVI XS trial is a multicentre, randomised, open-label clinical trial with blinded evaluation of endpoints. A total of 238 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI will be included. The primary endpoint is the incidence of clinically relevant bleeding (i.e. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3 or 5 bleeding) of the randomised secondary access site (either diagnostic or pacemaker access, or both) within 30 days after TAVI. Secondary endpoints include time to mobilisation after TAVI, duration of hospitalisation, any BARC type 2, 3 or 5 bleeding, and early safety at 30 days according to Valve Academic Research Consortium3 criteria. CONCLUSION: The TAVI XS trial is the first randomised trial comparing an upper extremity approach to a lower extremity approach with regard to clinically relevant secondary access site-related bleeding complications. The results of this trial will provide important insights into the safety and efficacy of an upper extremity approach in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI.
RESUMEN
Background The femoral vein is commonly used as a pacemaker access site during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Using an upper arm vein as an alternative access site potentially causes fewer bleeding complications and shorter time to mobilization. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of an upper arm vein as a temporary pacemaker access site during TAVR. Methods We evaluated all patients undergoing TAVR in our center between January 2020 and January 2023. Upper arm, femoral, and jugular vein pacemaker access was used in 255 (45.8%), 191 (34.3%), and 111 (19.9%) patients, respectively. Clinical outcomes were analyzed according to pacemaker access in the overall population and in a propensity-matched population involving 165 upper arm and 165 femoral vein patients. Primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 pacemaker access site-related bleeding. Results In the overall population, primary endpoint was lowest for upper arm, followed by femoral and jugular vein access (2.4% vs. 5.8% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.003). Time to mobilization was significantly longer (p < 0.001) in the jugular cohort compared with the other cohorts. In the propensity-matched cohort, primary endpoint showed a trend toward lower occurrence in the upper arm compared with the femoral cohort (2.4% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.10). Time to mobilization was significantly shorter (480 vs. 1140 min, p < 0.001) in the upper arm cohort, with a comparable skin-to-skin time (83 vs. 85 min, p = 0.75). Cross-over from upper arm pacemaker access was required in 17 patients (6.3% of attempted cases via an upper arm vein). Conclusions Using an upper arm vein as a temporary pacemaker access site is safe and feasible. Its use might be associated with fewer bleeding complications and shorter time to mobilization compared with the femoral vein.