Percutaneous Versus Surgical Cutdown Access for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Focusing on Propensity-Score Matched Studies.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a potential alternative for aortic valve surgery to treat aortic valve stenosis. There is limited evidence on the comparative outcomes of TAVI access approaches, specifically the percutaneous (PC) vs surgical cutdown (SC) approach. This study aimed to assess the short-term outcomes in patients undergoing PC vs SC access for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement. METHODS: PubMed, SCOPUS, and EMBASE were searched to identify relevant studies. The primary outcomes were short-term all-cause mortality, bleeding, vascular complications, and length of in-hospital stay for patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI. Both matched and unmatched observational studies were included and subgroup analyses were performed. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in line with the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Fifteen observational studies involving 7,545 patients (3,033 underwent the PC approach and 2,466 underwent the SC approach) were included. There were no clinically significant between-group differences in short-term mortality, bleeding, length of in-hospital stay, or major vascular complications. However, minor vascular complications were significantly higher in patients who underwent PC-TAVI (p=0.007). In the matched subgroup, all outcomes were comparable between both groups, with the largest difference being observed in minor vascular complications more frequently occurring in the PC group (p=0.08). CONCLUSION: The evidence shows that outcomes were comparable between the two methods of access, rendering both the PC and SC approaches equally effective for transfemoral TAVI. However, it is worth noting that minor vascular complications were more pronounced in the PC group.