4.6 Article

Transfemoral implantation of the ACURATE neo prosthesis using a low-profile expandable introducer system: A multicenter registry

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 281, Issue -, Pages 76-81

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.01.081

Keywords

TAVI; TAVR; Transfemoral access; Vascular complication; ACURATE; Introducer sheath

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The ACURATE neo prosthesis is commonly implanted using introducer sheaths with inner diameters of up to 20 French. The use of only the expandable mesh component of the transGlide introducer system (Meshoay) would substantially decrease the inner diameter to 13 French. We sought to assess the feasibility and safety of using Mesh,,i, for femoral access of the ACURATE neo device and to compare outcomes with patients in whom standard sheaths were used. Methods and results: We retrospectively analyzed a total of 551 patients with severe aortic stenosis from 4 high volume centers in Germany and Switzerland undergoing transfemoral TAVI between February 2016 and February 2018 with implantation of the ACURATE neo device. The median age was 81.7 [78.3-85.2], 67.0% were female, the STS score was 4.2% [2.8-6.5]. The use of the Mesh,th, was feasible in all attempted cases (n 272); in all other patients, a standard sheath was used. Major vascular complications at the main access-site (VARC-2) were less frequent in the Meshorft group than in the standard sheath group (1.5% vs. 7.9%; p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, the use of Mesh t,; was independently associated with less major vascular complications (odds ratio 0.10 [95% CI 0.02-0.48]; p 0.004). Conclusions: Transfemoral implantation of the ACURATE neo device using the Meshon] was associated with a lower rate of major access-related complications when compared to the standard of care. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available