4.0 Article

Brachiocephalic artery access in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a valuable alternative: 3-year institutional experience

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivv262

关键词

Aortic valve stenosis; Transcatheter aortic valve implantation; Alternative access; Brachiocephalic artery; Innominate artery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: With the expanding use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), we have encountered increasing numbers of patients without ideal femoral access. Although many alternatives have been described, vascular access and access-related complications remain a point of concern. We report our series of 20 patients undergoing TAVI via brachiocephalic artery access. METHODS: Between September 2011 and May 2014, we performed 107 consecutive CoreValve bioprosthesis implantations, of which 20 were by the brachiocephalic approach due to unfavourable iliac or femoral anatomy. RESULTS: No vascular or access-related complications were seen. Procedural feasibility, device success and early safety, as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria, were good, at 100, 95 and 95%, respectively. No stroke, transient ischaemic attack, acute kidney injury, major vascular or major bleeding complications were observed. At a mean follow-up of 497 days, the 1-year survival rate is 75.0%. Echocardiography at discharge confirmed moderate paravalvular regurgitation in 1 patient and mild paravalvular leakage in 3 patients, and no paravalvular leak more than moderate was seen. Echocardiography at discharge, 6 months and 1 year after TAVI confirmed persistent low mean transvalvular gradients (9, 9 and 10 mmHg, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: TAVI implantation through the brachiocephalic artery is safe and feasible. The distance between the point of access and the aortic valve annulus is short, improving catheter stability and implant site accuracy. We consider it to be a valuable alternative in patients without femoral access.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据