Comparison of Local Versus General Anesthesia Following Transfemoral Transcatheter Self-Expanding Aortic Valve Implantation (from the Transcatheter Valve Therapeutics Registry).

Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) is mostly performed under general anesthesia (GA) in most US centers. We examined in-hospital and 30-day outcomes in patients who underwent TF-TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis using local anesthesia (LA) or GA. Patients from the Transcatheter Valve Therapeutics Registry who underwent TF-TAVR from January 2014 to June 2016 with LA or GA were evaluated. Propensity matching was performed and procedural and clinical outcomes compared up to 30 days. A total of 11,006 patients were included (GA: 8,239 [74.9%] and LA: 2,767 [25.1%]). After propensity matching (n = 1,988 matched sets), device success was similar (94.5% vs 94.6%, p = 0.905). No differences in in-hospital stroke (2.7% vs 2.3%, p = 0.413) or paravalvular regurgitation grade (p = 0.113) were noted. Fewer LA patients were converted to open heart surgery (0.2% vs 0.6%, p = 0.076) or experienced an in-hospital major vascular complication (0.7% vs 1.4%, p = 0.026). Intensive care unit time (40.1 ± 58.4 vs 50.9 ± 72.1 hours, p < 0.001) and postprocedure length of stay (4.1 ± 3.6 vs 5.0 ± 4.5 days, p < 0.001) were significantly shorter with LA. In-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality were lower in the LA cohort compared to the GA cohort ([1.1% vs 2.7%, p < 0.001] and [2.1% vs 3.9%, p = 0.001]). In conclusion, in the largest series of self-expanding bioprostheses for TF-TAVR, these propensity-matched cohorts demonstrate that LA is an acceptable alternative to GA with comparable success, lower safety outcomes, complications rates, and in-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality.

Comparison of Outcomes of Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Using a Minimally Invasive Versus Conventional Strategy.

Some centers, mostly in Europe, have demonstrated the feasibility of a minimally invasive strategy (MIS; i.e., local anesthesia and conscious sedation, performed in the cath laboratory without transesophageal echocardiography guidance). Nonetheless, the experience of MIS for TAVI using both commercially available valves is lacking in the United States. We, therefore, retrospectively studied all transfemoral TAVI cases performed at our institution between March 2011 and November 2014 to assess the safety and efficacy of MIS. Patients were dichotomized according to the strategy (MIS vs conventional strategy [CS]) used for the procedure. One hundred sixteen patients were included in the MIS group and 91 patients were included in the CS group. Baseline characteristics were similar, and procedural success was comparable (99.1% in MIS and 98.9% in CS, p = 1). One intraprocedural death occurred in each group, whereas conversion rates to general anesthesia were low (3.4%). Comparable device success was obtained. Rates of complications and >mild paravalvular leak before discharge were low and comparable. Length of hospital stay was significantly reduced in the MIS (median, 3.0 [2.0 to 5.0] days) compared with than that in CS group (median 6.0 days [3.5, 8.0]). At a median follow-up of 230 days, no significant difference in survival rate was detected (89% vs 88%, p = 0.9). On average, MIS was associated with remarkable cost saving compared with CS ($16,000/case). In conclusion, TAVI through MIS was associated with a shorter postprocedural hospital stay, lower costs, and similar safety profile while keeping procedural efficacy compared with CS.