We have located links that may give you full text access.
2-Year Results of CoreValve Implantation Through the Subclavian Access: A Propensity-Matched Comparison With the Femoral Access.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2012 August 8
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the procedural and 2-year results of the subclavian approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared with those of the femoral approach by using propensity-matched analysis.
BACKGROUND: The subclavian approach with the CoreValve prosthesis (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota) represents an interesting opportunity when the femoral access is unfeasible.
METHODS: All consecutive patients enrolled in the Italian CoreValve Registry who underwent TAVI with the subclavian approach were included. Propensity score analysis was used to identify a matching group of patients undergoing femoral TAVI.
RESULTS: Subclavian approach was used in 141 patients (61% men; median age 83 years; median logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score 23.7%). The femoral group of 141 patients was matched for baseline clinical characteristics, except for peripheral artery disease. The 2 groups showed similar procedural success (97.9% vs. 96.5%; p = 0.47), major vascular complications (5.0% vs. 7.8%; p = 0.33), life-threatening bleeding events (7.8% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.48), and combined safety endpoint (19.9% vs. 25.5%; p = 0.26). The subclavian group showed lower rates of acute kidney injury/stage 3 (4.3% vs. 9.9%; p = 0.02), of minor vascular complications at the 18-F sheath insertion site (2.1% vs. 11.3%; p = 0.003), and of all types of bleeding events related to vascular complications. Survival at 2 years was 74.0 ± 4.0% in the subclavian group compared with 73.7 ± 3.9% in the femoral group (p = 0.78). The 2-year freedom from cardiovascular death was 87.2 ± 3.1% versus 88.7 ± 2.8% in the subclavian versus femoral group, respectively (p = 0.84).
CONCLUSIONS: The subclavian approach for TAVI is safe and feasible, with procedural and medium-term results similar to the femoral approach. Subclavian access should be considered a valid option not only when the femoral approach is impossible but also when it is difficult, albeit feasible.
BACKGROUND: The subclavian approach with the CoreValve prosthesis (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota) represents an interesting opportunity when the femoral access is unfeasible.
METHODS: All consecutive patients enrolled in the Italian CoreValve Registry who underwent TAVI with the subclavian approach were included. Propensity score analysis was used to identify a matching group of patients undergoing femoral TAVI.
RESULTS: Subclavian approach was used in 141 patients (61% men; median age 83 years; median logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score 23.7%). The femoral group of 141 patients was matched for baseline clinical characteristics, except for peripheral artery disease. The 2 groups showed similar procedural success (97.9% vs. 96.5%; p = 0.47), major vascular complications (5.0% vs. 7.8%; p = 0.33), life-threatening bleeding events (7.8% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.48), and combined safety endpoint (19.9% vs. 25.5%; p = 0.26). The subclavian group showed lower rates of acute kidney injury/stage 3 (4.3% vs. 9.9%; p = 0.02), of minor vascular complications at the 18-F sheath insertion site (2.1% vs. 11.3%; p = 0.003), and of all types of bleeding events related to vascular complications. Survival at 2 years was 74.0 ± 4.0% in the subclavian group compared with 73.7 ± 3.9% in the femoral group (p = 0.78). The 2-year freedom from cardiovascular death was 87.2 ± 3.1% versus 88.7 ± 2.8% in the subclavian versus femoral group, respectively (p = 0.84).
CONCLUSIONS: The subclavian approach for TAVI is safe and feasible, with procedural and medium-term results similar to the femoral approach. Subclavian access should be considered a valid option not only when the femoral approach is impossible but also when it is difficult, albeit feasible.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app