Comparison of results of transcatheter femoral aortic valve replacement under local and general anesthesia: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, TAVR (Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement) has been performed under general anesthesia (GA). Thus GA facilitates the use of TEE (Transesophageal echocardiography), and the use of TEE is an important means to improve the quality of cardiac surgery and reduce postoperative complications. However, GA was also associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, longer hospitalization and intensive care unit hours, and the need for positive inotropic agents. With increasing clinical experience and advances in transcatheter techniques, transfemoral TAVR may also be feasible under local anesthesia (LA). Studies have shown that LA can avoid hemodynamic fluctuations caused by general anesthesia and lung damage caused by positive pressure ventilation, and can also reduce medical costs. METHODS: Two researchers independently read the titles and abstracts of the literature obtained. After excluding the studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria, they read through the full text of the remaining literatures to determine whether they truly met the inclusion criteria. When two researchers disagree on the included literature, the third researcher decides whether to include it or not. For literature with incomplete data, contact the author via email for unpublished data. The included studies were assessed by two researchers for the risk of bias, and cross-checked. Stata16.0 was used for meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed by χ2 test and I2 quantification. Pooled analysis was performed by random effects model. Sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding references one by one. We will perform subgroup analysis based on data conditions. RESULTS: In this study, high quality evidence was provided by selecting local anesthesia and general anesthesia during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement for patients with primary arterial stenosis. CONCLUSION: Local anesthesia provides anaesthetic-guided sedation that does not require intubation and is safe and effective. Local anesthesia may be a better alternative to TAVR under general anesthesia. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study does not require ethical approval. INPLASY REGISTRATION NUMBER: INPLASY202170078.

Incremental Prognostic Value of Coronary Artery Calcium Score for Predicting All-Cause Mortality after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Background Current risk models show limited performances for predicting all-cause mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Purpose To determine the prognostic value of coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring for predicting 30-day and 1-year mortality in patients undergoing TAVR. Materials and Methods In this single-center institutional review board-approved secondary analysis of prospectively collected data (SwissTAVI Registry), the authors evaluated participants who, before TAVR, underwent CT that included a nonenhanced electrocardiography-gated cardiac scan between May 2008 and September 2019 and who had not undergone previous coronary revascularization. Clinical data, including the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE II), were recorded. The CAC score was determined, and 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality were assessed by using Cox regression analyses. Results In total, 309 participants (mean age ± standard deviation, 81 years ± 7; 175 women) were included, with a median CAC score of 334 (interquartile range, 104-987). Seventy-seven of the 309 participants (25%) had a CAC score greater than or equal to 1000. A CAC score of 1000 or greater served as an independent predictor of 30-day (hazard ratio [HR], 4.5 [95% CI: 1.5, 13.6] compared with a CAC score <1000; P = .007) and 1-year (HR, 4.3 [95% CI: 1.5, 12.7] compared with a CAC score of 0-99; P = .008) mortality after TAVR. Similar trends were observed for each point increase of the EuroSCORE II as an independent predictor of 30-day (HR, 1.22 [95% CI: 1.10, 1.36]; P < .001) and 1-year (HR, 1.16 [95% CI: 1.08, 1.25]; P < .001) mortality. Adding the CAC score to the EuroSCORE II provided incremental prognostic value for 1-year mortality after TAVR over the EuroSCORE II alone (concordance index, 0.76 vs 0.69; P = .04). Conclusion In participants without prior coronary revascularization, the coronary artery calcium score represented an independent predictor of 30-day and 1-year mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01368250 © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Almeida in this issue.

Routine minimalist transcatheter aortic valve implantation with local anesthesia only.

AIMS: Conscious sedation instead of general anesthesia has been increasingly adopted in many centers for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Improvement of materials and operators' experience and reduction of periprocedural complications allowed procedural simplification and adoption of a minimalist approach. With this study, we sought to assess the feasibility and safety of transfemoral TAVR routinely performed under local anesthesia without on-site anesthesiology support. METHODS: The routine transfemoral TAVR protocol adopted at our center includes a minimalist approach, local anesthesia alone with fully awake patient, anesthesiologist available on call but not in the room, and direct transfer to the cardiology ward after the procedure. All consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR between January 2015 and July 2018 were included. We assessed the rates of actual local anesthesia-only procedures, conversion to conscious sedation or general anesthesia and 30-day clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Among 321 patients, 6 received general anesthesia upfront and 315 (98.1%) local anesthesia only. Mean age of the local anesthesia group was 83.2 ±â€Š6.9 years, Society of Thoracic Surgery score 5.8 ±â€Š4.8%. A balloon-expandable valve was used in 65.7%. Four patients (1.3%) shifted to conscious sedation because of pain or anxiety; 6 patients (1.9%) shifted to general anesthesia because of procedural complications. Hence, local anesthesia alone was possible in 305 patients (96.8% of the intended cohort, 95% of all transfemoral procedures). At 30 days, in the intended local anesthesia group, mortality was 1.6%, stroke 0.6%, major vascular complications 2.6%. Median hospital stay was 4 days (IQR 3-7). CONCLUSION: Transfemoral TAVR can be safely performed with local anesthesia alone and without an on-site anesthesiologist in the vast majority of patients.

Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Using Fascia Iliaca Block as an Alternative Approach to Conscious Sedation as Compared to General Anesthesia.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: General Anesthesia (GA) and conscious sedation (CS) are anesthetics for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR). We compared TF-TAVR outcomes using a novel anesthetic approach with fascia iliaca block (FIB) plus minimal CS (MCS) versus GA. METHODS: This retrospective propensity-matched study included consecutive TF-TAVR patients from January 2013 to December 2017 and dichotomized into FIB-MCS vs. GA. Data were collected from electronic records, Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) database, and the Transcatheter Valve Therapies (TVT) Registry. Primary endpoints were operating room (OR) time, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS). Secondary endpoints were 30-day, 1-year mortality, quality of life, 30-day re-hospitalization rate, failure of FIB-MCS, and hospital safety outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 304 TF-TAVR patients; FIB-MCS (n = 219) vs. GA (n = 85). Propensity matched 162 patients; FIB-MCS (n = 108) vs. GA (n = 54). FIB-MCS had shorter OR time (197.6 ±â€¯56.3 vs. 248.2 ±â€¯46.3 min, p < 0.001), ICU (67.8 ±â€¯71.7 vs. 84.9 ±â€¯72.1 h, p = 0.004) and hospital LOS (3.2 ±â€¯3.7 vs. 5.9 ±â€¯3.5 d, p < 0.001). FIB-MCS had lower rate of blood transfusion. FIB-MCA vs. GA 30-day and 1-year mortality were similar in the entire (2.3 vs. 2.4%, p = 1.0; and 8.2 vs. 5.9%, p = 0.49) and matched cohorts (0 vs. 3.7%, p = 0.11 and 7.4 vs. 5.6%, p = 0.75). FIB-MCS were less likely to be re-hospitalized [Odd Ratio: 0.32, CI:0.13-0.76] and 2% to 3% higher KCCQ-12 score. CONCLUSION: TF-TAVR using FIB-MCS is feasible and safe with shorter OR time, ICU and hospital LOS, lower risk of 30-day re-hospitalization, similar 30-day and 1-year mortality with better quality of life at 1-year follow-up.

Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation for failed surgical bioprosthetic valves. A minimalist approach without contrast aortography or echocardiographic guidance.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate safety, feasibility and short-term clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) implantation under local anesthesia without contrast aortography or echocardiographic guidance. BACKGROUND: Transcatheter ViV implantation is an emerging treatment modality for patients with degenerative surgical bioprostheses. Given the radiopaque properties of the surgical aortic valve (SAV) frame, ViV procedures can often be performed with fluoroscopic guidance alone. METHODS: ViV implantation was performed in 37 patients with SAV failure under local anesthesia without contrast aortography. Clinical and echocardiographic data were obtained at baseline, discharge, and 30 days. RESULTS: Mean age was 74 ± 10 years and STS predicted risk of mortality was 5.6 ± 2.4%. Mean transaortic gradient decreased from 39.4 ± 15.5 mmHg to 13 ± 6.3 mmHg at discharge (p < .001), and 20 ± 7.5 mmHg at 30 days (p < .001 compared to baseline), aortic valve area increased from 0.9 ± 0.3 cm2 to 1.2 ± 0.4 cm2 at 30 days (p = .007). No patient had more than mild aortic regurgitation. Hospital discharge occurred at a median of 2.6 ± 4.4 days. At 30-day follow-up there were no deaths, myocardial infarctions, strokes, repeat hospital admissions for heart failure, or renal failure. One patient (2.7%) required a new pacemaker. 93% of the patients were in New York Heart Association functional class I or II. CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter aortic ViV implantation for selected patients with degenerative surgical bioprostheses under local anesthesia without aortography or echocardiographic guidance is feasible and safe.

[Best conditions to perform TAVI procedures]. / Les bonnes conditions pour réaliser des TAVI.

Well conditions to perform TAVI procedures are guided by ministry regulation and dedicated to centers with both on-site a cath-lab and cardiac surgery. Heart Team decision is mandatory to select patient for TAVI and local anesthesia is recommended. Conditions changes would be discuss according to increased procedures number related to indications evolution.

[Initial Experience of a TAVI Program: Analysis of the Anesthetic Decision and its Evolution]. / Experiência Inicial de um Programa de TAVI: Análise da Decisão Anestésica e sua Evolução.

INTRODUCTION: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is a less invasive option for aortic valve replacement. The number of transcatheter aortic valve implantations under local anesthesia with sedation has been increasing as the team's experience increases and less invasive accesses are used. The aim of this study is to describe the evolution of the anesthetic technique in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation at our center over the years, as which was compared. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective study in 149 consecutive patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation in Hospital Santa Marta (January 2010 to December 2016). Data was collected from the periprocedural records of patients. Patients were stratified according to anesthetic technique. RESULTS: From our patients' sample, 57.0% were female, with median age 82 [58 - 95] years. Most patients underwent general anesthesia (68.5%). In the local anesthesia with sedation group there was a shorter duration of the procedure (120; [60 - 285] vs 155 [30 - 360]) and a lower number of patients requiring administration of vasopressors (61.8% vs 28.3%) - p < 0.05. There were no differences regarding length of hospital stay (9 [4 - 59] vs 10 [3 - 87]), periprocedural complications (66.0% vs 72.5%), readmission rate (4.3% vs 3.9%) or 30-days (2.1% vs 4.9%) and 1-year mortality (6.4% vs 7.8%) - p < 0.05. There was an increasing number of transcatheter aortic valve implantations performed under local anesthesia with sedation over the years. DISCUSSION: The choice of anesthetic technique depends on the patient's characteristics, experience and preference of the team. CONCLUSION: Local anesthesia with sedation seems to be associated with similar results as general anesthesia. The increase in the number of transcatheter aortic valve implantations under local anesthesia with sedation seems to follow the trend of lower invasiveness of the procedure.

Introdução: A implantação percutânea de válvula aórtica constitui uma opção menos invasiva de substituição valvular. O número de procedimentos sob anestesia local com sedação tem vindo a crescer com o aumento da experiência da equipa e os acessos cada vez menos invasivos. O trabalho tem como objetivo a descrição da evolução da técnica anestésica utilizada nos doentes submetidos a implantação percutânea de válvula aórtica no nosso centro ao longo dos anos, e sua comparação. Material e Métodos: Estudo retrospetivo em 149 doentes consecutivos submetidos a implantação percutânea de válvula aórtica no Hospital de Santa Marta (janeiro de 2010 a dezembro de 2016). Os dados foram colhidos a partir dos registos peri-procedimento e estratificados de acordo com a técnica anestésica. Resultados: Da amostra recolhida, 57,0% dos doentes eram do sexo feminino, com mediana idade 82 [58 - 95] anos. A maioria dos doentes foi submetida a anestesia geral (68,5%). Verificou-se menor duração do procedimento (120 [60 - 285] vs 155 [30 - 360]) e menor número de doentes com necessidade de administração de vasopressores na implantação percutânea de válvula aórtica (61,8% vs 28,3%) ­ p < 0,05. Não se registaram diferenças referentes à duração do internamento (9 [4 - 59] vs 10 [3 - 87]), complicações periprocedimento (66,0% vs 72,5%), reinternamento (4,3% vs 3,9%), mortalidade aos 30 dias (2,1% vs 4,9%) e 1 ano (6,4% vs 7,8%) ­ p > 0,05. O número de implantações percutâneas de válvula aórtica realizados sob anestesia local com sedação aumentou ao longo dos anos. Discussão: A escolha da técnica anestésica tende a variar consoante as características do doente, a experiência e preferência da equipa. Conclusão: Os resultados da anestesia local com sedação são similares aos da anestesia geral, tendo o aumento do número de procedimentos de implantação percutânea de válvula aórtica sob anestesia local com sedação acompanhado a tendência de menor invasibilidade do procedimento.

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 local versus general anesthesia in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is typically performed under general anesthesia (GA). However, there is increasing data supporting the safety of performing TAVR under local anesthesia/conscious sedation (LA). We performed a meta-analysis to gain better understanding of the safety and efficacy of LA versus GA in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR. METHODS AND RESULTS: We comprehensively searched EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. Effect sizes were summarized using risk ratios (RRs) difference of the mean (DM), and 95% CIs (confidence intervals) for dichotomous and continuous variables respectively. Twenty-six studies and 10,572 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The use of LA for TAVR was associated with lower overall 30-day mortality (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.93; P = 0.01), use of inotropic/vasopressor drugs (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28-0.72; P < 0.001), hospital length of stay (LOS) (DM, -2.09; 95% CI, -3.02 to -1.16; P < 0.001), intensive care unit LOS (DM, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.31 to -0.04; P = 0.01), procedure time (DM, -25.02; 95% CI, -32.70 to -17.35; P < 0.001); and fluoroscopy time (DM, -1.63; 95% CI, -3.02 to -0.24; P = 0.02). No differences were observed between LA and GA for stroke, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker implantation, acute kidney injury, paravalvular leak, vascular complications, major bleeding, procedural success, conduction abnormalities, and annular rupture. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggests that use of LA for TAVR is associated with a lower 30-day mortality, shorter procedure time, fluoroscopy time, ICU LOS, hospital length of stay, and reduced need for inotropic support.

Is local anaesthesia a favourable approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation? A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing local and general anaesthesia.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the potential favourable effects of local anaesthesia plus sedation (LAS) compared with general anaesthesia (GA) in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS: Electronic databases (PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and the reference lists of eligible publications were screened for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published between 1 January 2006 and 26 June 2016 that compare LAS to GA in an adult study population undergoing TAVI. We conducted study quality assessments using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and structured the review according to PRISMA. A meta-analysis calculating the pooled risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) under the assumption of a random-effects model was performed. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using the I² statistic and Cochran's Q-test. RESULTS: After database screening, one RCT and 19 observational studies were included in the review. We found no differences between LAS and GA in terms of 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality and other endpoints that addressed safety and complication rates. LAS was associated with a shorter ICU and hospital stay and with lower rates of catecholamine administration and red blood cell transfusion. New pacemaker implantations occurred more frequently under LAS. The overall conversion rate from LAS to GA was 6.2%. CONCLUSION: For TAVI, both LAS and GA are feasible and safe. LAS may have some benefits such as increased haemodynamic stability and shorter hospital and ICU stays, but it does not impact 30-day mortality. Since there is a paucity of randomised trial data and the findings are mainly based on observational study data, this review should be considered as a hypothesis-generating article for subsequent RCTs that are required to confirm the potential favourable effects we detected for LAS. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016048398 (PROSPERO).

Outcome of patients undergoing TAVR with and without the attendance of an anesthesiologist.

BACKGROUND: During the last few years there is a shift from performing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) under general anesthesia towards conscious sedation and local anesthesia only. In the vast majority of centers, sedation is guided by a qualified anesthesiologist. In our center, all TAVR procedures are being performed under local anesthesia and mild sedation, however, since September 2014, a large portion of TAVR procedures are being performed under local anesthesia without the presence of an anesthesiologist. Here we compare 30days outcome of patients undergoing TAVR with and without the presence of anesthesiologist in the catheterization laboratory. METHODS AND RESULTS: From September 2014 through April 2016, 324 patients (mean age 82.8±6) with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis were assigned to transfemoral TAVR with (150 patients) or without (174 patients) the attendance of an anesthesiologist. Baseline clinical and echocardiographic characteristics were similar between the groups. No difference in procedural and 30-day mortality, vascular complications, and major/life threatening bleeding were observed between the groups (p>0.1, for all). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of an anesthesiologist in the catheterization laboratory during transfemoral TAVR procedures did not significantly change 30-day outcome.

The value of electrophysiologic study in decision-making regarding the need for pacemaker implantation after TAVI.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate electrophysiologic study (EPS) in risk stratification of relative indications for pacemaker implantation (PMI) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS: We reviewed files of all patients who had a left bundle branch block (LBBB) and underwent EPS after TAVI between 3/2009 and 5/2015. The indications for EPS were new-onset LBBB and the presence of an old or a new-onset LBBB associated with either PR prolongation after TAVI (∆PR >20 ms) or with "slow" atrial fibrillation (<100/min). Pacemakers were implanted when significant infranodal disease was demonstrated. The control group comprised of 55 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI and had an indication for an EPS per our definitions. These patients were discharged without further intervention. All patients were followed during 1 year for the composite endpoint of mortality or PMI after hospital discharge. RESULTS: Indications for EPS were new LBBB (n = 8, 30.8%), new LBBB + ∆PR >20 ms (n = 9, 34.6%), baseline LBBB + ∆PR >20 ms (n = 7, 26.9%) and new LBBB + slow AF <100 bpm (n = 2, 7.7%). Multilevel conduction disturbances involving the AV node (n = 19, 73.1%), the His (n = 3, 11.5%), and the infra-His system (n = 4, 15.4%) were found. Post discharge, there were 5 (9%) deaths and 3 (5.5%) PMI in the control group compared to none in the EPS group corresponding to event-free survival of 85 and 100%, respectively (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with LBBB with or without ∆PR >20 ms are at a higher risk of mortality and late PMI at 1-year follow-up. EPS can be used to safely identify patients in whom a PMI is needed.

Transcarotid Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: General or Local Anesthesia.

OBJECTIVES: The study sought to assess the safety and efficacy of a minimally invasive strategy (MIS) (local anesthesia and conscious sedation) compared to general anesthesia (GA) among the largest published cohort of patients undergoing transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: Transcarotid TAVR has been shown to be feasible and safe. There is, however, no information pertaining to the mode anesthesia in these procedures. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2014, 174 patients underwent transcarotid TAVR at 2 French centers. All patients were unsuitable for transfemoral TAVR due to severe peripheral vascular disease. An MIS was undertaken in 29.8% (n = 52) and GA in 70.1% (n = 122). One-year clinical outcomes were available in all patients and were described according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus. RESULTS: Transcarotid vascular access and transcatheter valve deployment was successful in all cases. Thirty-day mortality was 7.4% (n = 13) and 1-year all-cause and cardiovascular mortality were 12.6% (n = 22) and 8.0% (n = 14), respectively. According to the type of anesthesia, there was no between group difference in 30-day mortality (GA 7.3% vs. MIS 7.6%; p = 0.94), 1-year mortality (GA 13.9% vs. MIS 9.6%; p = 0.43), 1-month clinical efficacy (GA 85.2% vs. MIS 94.2%; p = 0.09), and early safety (GA 77.8% vs. MIS 86.5%; p = 0.18). There were 10 (5.7%) periprocedural cerebrovascular events: 4 strokes (2.2%) and 6 transient ischemic attacks (3.4%) among those treated with GA. There was neither stroke nor transient ischemic attack in the MIS group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The transcarotid approach for TAVR is feasible using general or local anesthesia. A higher rate of perioperative strokes was observed with GA.

Vancouver Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Clinical Pathway: Minimalist Approach, Standardized Care, and Discharge Criteria to Reduce Length of Stay.

We describe the development, implementation, and evaluation of a standardized clinical pathway to facilitate safe discharge home at the earliest time after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Between May 2012 and October 2014, the Heart Team developed a clinical pathway suited to the unique requirements of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement in contemporary practice. The components included risk-stratified minimalist periprocedure approach, standardized postprocedure care with early mobilization and reconditioning, and criteria-driven discharge home. Our aim was to reduce variation in care, identify a subgroup of patients suitable for early discharge (≤48 hours), and decrease length of stay for all patients. We addressed barriers related to historical practices, complex multidisciplinary stakeholder engagement, and adoption of length of stay as a quality indicator. We retrospectively reviewed the experiences of 393 consecutive patients; 150 (38.2%) were discharged early. At baseline, early discharge patients had experienced less previous balloon aortic valvuloplasty, had higher left ventricular ejection fraction, better cognitive function, and were less frail than the standard discharge group (>48 hours). Early discharge was associated with the use of local anesthesia, implantation of balloon expandable device, avoidance of urinary catheter, and early removal of temporary pacemaker. Median length of stay was 1 day for early discharge and 3 days for other patients; 97.7% were discharged home. There were no differences in 30-day mortality (1.3%), disabling stroke (0.8%), or readmission (10.7%). The implementation of a transcatheter aortic valve replacement clinical pathway shifted the program's approach to combine standardized processes and individual risk stratification. The Vancouver transcatheter aortic valve replacement clinical pathway requires a rigorous assessment to determine its efficacy, safety, and reproducibility.

Mid-term survival after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Results with respect to the anesthetic management and to the access route (transfemoral versus transapical).

CONTEXT: Several studies have analyzed the long-term survival after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, no previous studies have looked at survival beyond 1-year with respect to the type of anesthesia. AIMS: The aim was to evaluate the mid-term survival after TAVI with respect to the type of anesthesia (general anesthesia [GA] vs. local anesthesia ± sedation [LASedation]) or the type of procedure (transfemoral [transfem] vs. transapical TAVI) performed. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included TAVI's between January 2009 and June 2013. Patients were divided into three groups: transfem TAVI under GA, transfem TAVI under LASedation and transapical TAVI. A total of 176 patients were eligible. The following clinical outcomes were evaluated: (1) Mortality, (2) Major cardiovascular complications, (3) Conduction abnormalities and arrhythmias, (4) Acute kidney injury, (5) Aortic regurgitation, (6) Neurologic events, (7) Vascular complications, (8) Pulmonary complications, (9) Bleeding, (10) Infectious complications, (11) Delirium. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: A Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to test significance between the three groups for quantitative variables. Categorical variables were compared using a Chi-square test. Survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the survival of both transfem TAVI's (P = 0.46). The short-term outcome of the transfem TAVI groups was better than the transapical arm, but their mid-term survival did not show any significant difference (P = 0.69 transapical vs. transfem GA; P = 0.07 transapical vs. transfem LASedation). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that the type of anesthesia and the access route do not influence mid-term survival after TAVI.

Local and general anaesthesia do not influence outcome of transfemoral aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: There is great variability for the type of anaesthesia used during TAVI, with no clear consensus coming from comparative studies or guidelines. We sought to detect regional differences in the anaesthetic management of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in Europe and to evaluate the relationship between type of anaesthesia and in-hospital and 1 year outcome. METHODS: Between January 2011 and May 2012 the Sentinel European TAVI Pilot Registry enrolled 2807 patients treated via a transfemoral approach using either local (LA-group, 1095 patients, 39%) or general anaesthesia (GA-group, 1712 patients, 61%). RESULTS: A wide variation in LA use was evident amongst the 10 participating countries. The use of LA has increased over time (from a mean of 37.5% of procedures in the first year, to 57% in last 6 months, p<0.01). MI, major stroke as well as in-hospital death rate (7.0% LA vs 5.3% GA, p=0.053) had a similar incidence between groups, confirmed in multivariate regression analysis after adjusting for confounders. Dividing our population in tertiles according to the Log-EuroSCORE we found similar mortality under LA, whilst mortality was higher in the highest risk tertile under GA. Survival at 1 year, compared by Kaplan-Meier analysis, was similar between groups (log-rank: p=0.1505). CONCLUSIONS: Selection of anaesthesia appears to be more influenced by national practice and operator preference than patient characteristics. In the absence of an observed difference in outcomes for either approach, there is no compelling argument to suggest that operators and centres should change their anaesthetic practice.

Clinical outcomes and safety of transfemoral aortic valve implantation under general versus local anesthesia: subanalysis of the French Aortic National CoreValve and Edwards 2 registry.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) performed under local anesthesia (LA) is becoming increasingly common. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes in patients who underwent transfemoral-TAVI under general anesthesia (GA) and LA. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 2326 patients in the French Aortic National CoreValve and Edwards 2 (FRANCE 2) registry who underwent transfemoral-TAVI were analyzed. During the study period, the percentage of LA procedures increased gradually from 14% in January 2010 to 59% in October 2011. The clinical outcomes for GA (n=1377) and LA (n=949) were compared. Numerous baseline characteristics differed between the 2 groups, and the use of transesophageal echocardiographic guidance was more common in GA than in LA (76.3% versus 16.9%; P<0.001). Device success and cumulative 30-day survival rates were similar in the 2 groups (97.6% versus 97.0%; P=0.41 and 91.6% versus 91.3%; P=0.69, respectively), whereas the incidence of postprocedural aortic regurgitation≥mild was significantly lower in GA than in LA (15.0% versus 19.1%; P=0.015). The groups were also analyzed using a propensity-matching model, including transesophageal echocardiographic usage (GA [n=401] versus LA [n=401]). This model indicated that there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in the rates of 30-day survival (GA [91.4%] versus LA [89.3%]; P=0.27] and postprocedural aortic regurgitation≥mild (GA [12.7%] versus LA [16.2%]; P=0.19). CONCLUSIONS: The less invasive transfemoral-TAVI under LA is preferred in clinical settings and seems to be acceptable; however, the higher incidence of postprocedural aortic regurgitation is emphasized. Therapeutic efforts should be made to reduce such complications during transfemoral-TAVI under LA.