CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

科研文章

荐读文献

Short Length of Stay After Elective Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Is Not Associated With Increased Early or Late Readmission Risk Early Versus Standard Discharge After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Predictors and Clinical Outcomes of Next-Day Discharge After Minimalist Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement 5-Year Outcomes Comparing Surgical Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Multivalvular Heart Disease Early Surgery or Conservative Care for Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis Conscious Sedation Versus General Anesthesia for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Variation in Practice and Outcomes Leaflet immobility and thrombosis in transcatheter aortic valve replacement Contemporary real-world outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in 141,905 low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients

Clinical TrialSeptember 2019

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Left Ventricular Rapid Pacing Via the Valve Delivery Guidewire in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

B Faurie, G Souteyrand, the EASY TAVI investigators. Keywords: left-ventricular stimulation; left-ventricular pacing; transcatheter aortic valve implantation; transcatheter aortic valve replacement

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Rapid ventricular pacing is necessary to ensure cardiac standstill during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

 

OBJECTIVES - We investigated whether left ventricular (LV)-stimulation via a guidewire reduced procedure duration while maintaining efficacy and safety compared with standard right ventricular (RV)-stimulation.

 

 

METHODS - This is a prospective, multicenter, single-blinded, superiority, randomized controlled trial. Patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI with a Sapien valve (Edwards Lifesciences) were allocated to LV- or RV-stimulation. The primary endpoint was procedure duration. Secondary endpoints included efficacy, safety, and cost at 30 days. This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02781896).

 

RESULTS - Between May 2017 and May 2018, 307 patients were randomised but 4 were excluded because they did not receive the intended treatment: 303 patients were analysed in the LV- (n=151) or RV-stimulation (n=152) groups. Mean procedure duration was significantly shorter in the LV-stimulation group (48.4±16.9 vs. 55.6±26.9 min, p=0.0013), with a difference of -0.12 (95% CI -0.20 to -0.05) in the log transformed procedure duration (p=0.0012). Effective stimulation was similar in the LV- and RV-stimulation groups: 124 (84.9%) vs. 128 (87.1%), p=0.60. Safety of stimulation was also similar in the LV- and RV-stimulation groups: procedural success occurred in 151 (100%) vs. 151 (99.3%) patients (p=0.99); 30-day MACE-TAVI occurred in 21 (13.9%) vs. 26 (17.1%) patients (p=0.44); fluoroscopy time was lower in the LV-stimulation group (13.48±5.98 vs. 14.60±5.59, p=0.02) as was cost (18,807±1,318 vs. 19,437±2,318, p=0.001).

 

CONCLUSIONS -  Compared with RV-stimulation, LV-stimulation during TAVI was associated with significantly reduced procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, and cost, with similar efficacy and safety.