Dual ProGlide versus ProGlide and FemoSeal for vascular access haemostasis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: Large-bore arteriotomy for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) requires percutaneous vascular closure devices, but real-world data comparing different closure strategies are limited. AIMS: We sought to compare a dual ProGlide strategy vs a combination of one ProGlide and one FemoSeal for vascular closure after TAVI. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 874 propensity score-matched patients undergoing TAVI at the Munich University Hospital from August 2018 to October 2020. From August 2018 to August 2019, a dual ProGlide strategy was used for vascular closure. From October 2019 to October 2020, a combination of one ProGlide and one FemoSeal was used. The primary endpoint was defined as access-related major vascular complications or bleeding ≥Type 2 according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria. RESULTS: Patients in the dual ProGlide group (n=437) had a higher incidence of the primary endpoint than patients treated with one ProGlide and one FemoSeal (n=437; 11.4% vs 3.0%; p<0.001). Furthermore, they had a higher rate of closure device failure (2.7% vs 0.9%; p=0.044) and more often required unplanned surgery or endovascular treatment (3.9% vs 0.9%; p=0.004). The incidence of death did not differ significantly between groups (3.4% vs 1.6%; p=0.08). CONCLUSIONS: A combined ProGlide and FemoSeal strategy might have the potential to reduce access-related vascular complications following TAVI.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with the Self-Expandable Core Valve Evolut Prosthesis Using the Cusp-Overlap vs. Tricusp-View.

Despite the rapid increase in experience and technological improvement, the incidence of conduction disturbances in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the self-expandable CoreValve Evolut valve remains high. Recently, a cusp-overlap view (COP) implantation technique has been proposed for TAVR with self-expandable valves offering an improved visualization during valve expansion compared to the three-cusp view (TCV). This study aims to systematically analyze procedural outcomes of TAVR patients treated with the CoreValve Evolut valve using a COP compared to TCV in a high-volume center. The primary endpoint was technical success according the 2021 VARC-3 criteria. A total of 122 consecutive patients (61 pts. TCV: April 2019 to November 2020; 61 pts. COP: December 2020 to October 2021) that underwent TAVR with the CoreValve Evolut prosthesis were included in this analysis. Although there was no difference in the primary endpoint technical success between TCV and COP patients (93.4% vs. 90.2%, OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.16, 2.4, p = 0.51), we observed a significantly lower risk for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) among COP patients (TCV: 27.9% vs. COP: 13.1%, OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.15, 0.97, p = 0.047). Implantation of the CoreValve Evolut prosthesis using the COP might help to reduce the rate of PPI following TAVR.