Comparison between Surgical Access and Percutaneous Closure Device in 787 Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Abstract

Background: The vascular access in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was initially dominated by a surgical approach. Meanwhile, percutaneous closure systems became a well-established alternative. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcome between the two approaches. Methods: In this retrospective study, we observed 787 patients undergoing a TAVR-Procedure between 2013 and 2019. Of those, 338 patients were treated with surgical access and 449 with the Perclose ProGlide™-System (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA). According to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) and Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) criteria, the primary combined endpoints were defined. Results: Overall hospital mortality was 2.8% with no significant difference between surgical (3.8%) and percutaneous (2.2%) access (p = 0.182). Major vascular complications or bleeding defined as the primary combined endpoint was not significantly different in either group (Surgical group 5.3%, ProGlide group 5.1%, p = 0.899). In the ProGlide group, women with pre-existing peripheral artery disease (PAD) were significantly more often affected by a vascular complication (p = 0.001 for female sex and p = 0.03 for PAD). Conclusions: We were able to show that the use of both accesses is safe. However, the surgical access route should also be considered in case of peripheral artery disease.

Keywords

• transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)
• vascular complications
• Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD)
• Aortic Valve Disease
• heart team