ObjectiveTo evaluate the early and mid-term safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement via transfemoral (TF), transapical (TAp) and transsubclavian (TSc) approaches by meta-analysis.MethodsWe systematically searched the clinical comparative trials published from inception to June 2019 from PubMed, Web of Science, EMbase and The Cochrane Library, to evaluate the safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement through TF, TAp or TSc approaches. The information of all-cause mortality at 30 days, 1 year, 2 years and the incidence of common complications at 30 days after operation (including pacemaker-dependent block, major vascular complications, severe bleeding events, acute renal injury and stroke) were exacted, and a meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsThis study included 11 literatures, with a total of 7 833 patients, among whom 5 348 patients were treated by TF TAVR, 1 796 patients by TAp TAVR and 689 patients by TSc TAVR. The results of the meta-analysis were as follows: (1) at 30 days after operation, the mortality of TF and TSc approaches were lower than that of the TAp approach (TF vs. TAp: OR=0.57, 95%CI 0.39-0.84, P=0.004; TSc vs. TAp: OR=4.12, 95%CI 1.93-8.79, P=0.000 3). There was no statistical difference between the TF and TSc approaches (TF vs. TSc: OR=0.98, 95%CI 0.38-2.51, P=0.97); at 1 year, there was no statistical difference in mortality among the three approaches (P>0.05); at 2 years, there was no statistical difference between TSc and TF or TAp approaches (TF vs. TSc: OR=1.21, 95%CI 0.95-1.54, P=0.13; TSc vs. TAp: OR=1.02, 95%CI 0.76-1.36, P=0.91). (2) The incidence of acute kidney injury after TF approach was lower than that of the TAp approach (OR=0.30, 95%CI 0.22-0.41, P<0.000 01). (3) There was no statistical difference in major vascular complications between TSc and TF or TAp approaches (TF vs. TSc: OR=0.75, 95%CI 0.38-1.49, P=0.41; TSc vs. TAp: OR=1.37, 95%CI 0.56-3.32, P=0.49). (4) There was no statistical difference in severe bleeding events between TF and TSc (OR=0.97, 95%CI 0.53-1.76, P=0.92). (5) There was no statistical difference in the incidence of postoperative stroke, pacemaker dependent block among the three approaches (P>0.05).ConclusionTAp and TSc approaches are safe and effective. They are not only an alternative to TF approach, but also the first choice in some patients with poor condition of iliofemoral artery.
ObjectiveTo investigate the feasibility and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) through apical approach for aortic regurgitation of large annulus.MethodsFrom November 2019 to May 2020, 10 male patients aged 64.50±4.20 years with aortic valve insufficiency (AI) underwent TAVR in the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Xijing Hospital. The surgical instruments were 29# J-valveTM modified and the patients underwent TAVR under angiography. The preoperative and postoperative cardiac function, valve regurgitation, complications and left ventricular remodeling were summarized by ultrasound and CT before and after TAVR.ResultsA total of 10 valves were implanted in 10 patients. Among them, 1 patient was transferred to the aortic arch during the operation and was transferred to surgical aortic valve replacement; the other 9 patients were successfully implanted with J-valve, with 6 patients of cardiac function (NYHA) class Ⅱ, 4 patients of grade Ⅲ. And there was a significant difference between preoperation and postoperation in left ventricular ejection fraction (44.70%±8.78% vs. 39.80%±8.48%, P<0.05) or aortic regurgitation (1.75±0.72 mL vs. 16.51±8.71 mL, P<0.05). After 3 months, the patients' cardiac function was good.ConclusionTAVR is safe and effective in the treatment of severe valvular disease with AI using J-valve.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficiency and safety of intraprocedural valve-in-valve deployment for treatment of aortic regurgitation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).MethodsConsecutive patients (n=333) who diagnosed with severe aortic stenosis and underwent TAVR in Zhongshan Hospital affiliated to Fudan University from October 3rd, 2010 to April 21st, 2021 were included. There were 208 males and 125 females aged 76.0±7.0 years. There were 316 patients underwent simple TAVR (simple TAVR group) and 17 patients underwent intraprocedural valve-in-valve deployment following TAVR (valve-in-valve group). Their clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were evaluated and compared.ResultsThere was no significant difference between the two groups of patients at postoperative 30 d and 1 year in all-cause mortality (4.4% vs. 0, P=1.000; 6.3% vs. 0, P=1.000), incidence of pacemaker implantation (10.4% vs. 17.6%, P=1.000; 11.8% vs. 17.6%, P=1.000), incidence of ischemic stroke (1.3% vs. 0, P=1.000; 1.3% vs. 0, P=1.000), mean trans-aortic pressure gradient (11.4±6.4 mm Hg vs. 8.9±4.9 mm Hg, P=0.099; 10.5±7.6 mm Hg vs. 11.2±5.2 mm Hg, P=0.432), left ventricular ejection fraction (62.0%±9.0% vs. 57.0%±12.0%, P=0.189; 63.0%±7.0% vs. 60.0%±8.0%, P=0.170), and incidence of mitral valve dysfunction (0.6% vs. 5.9%, P=1.000; 0.6% vs. 5.9%, P=1.000).ConclusionIt is feasible to treat perivalvular leakage with valve-in-valve technology in the procedure of TAVR, and the short and medium-term effects are satisfied.