Surgical cutdown versus percutaneous access in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Insights from the Brazilian TAVI registry.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the 1-year outcomes of complete percutaneous approach versus surgical vascular approach for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), among "real-world" patients from the multi-center Brazilian TAVI registry. BACKGROUND: Vascular access still remains a major challenge for TAVI via transfemoral approach. Vascular access through complete percutaneous approaches or through open surgical vascular techniques seems to be acutely similar. However, the long-term outcomes of both techniques remain poorly described. METHODS: The study population comprised all patients treated via transfemoral route in the Brazilian TAVI registry, a "real-world", nation-based, multi-center study. Patients were divided according to the initial vascular access approach (percutaneous vs. surgical) and clinically followed-up for 1 year. The primary endpoint was the incidence of combined adverse events all-cause mortality, life-threatening bleeding, and/or major vascular complication at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 402 patients from 18 centers comprised the study population (percutaneous approach in 182 patients; surgical cutdown approach 220 patients). The incidence of combined adverse events was not different in the percutaneous and the surgical groups at 30 days (17.6% vs. 16.3%; P = 0.8) and at 1 year (primary endpoint) (30.9% vs. 28.8%; P = 0.8). Also, the study groups overall were comparable regarding the incidence of each individual safety adverse events at 30 days and at 1 year. CONCLUSION: Total percutaneous techniques or surgical cutdown and closure may provide similar safety and effectiveness during the first year of follow-up in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI.

Distal versus traditional radial access in patients undergoing emergency coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Distal radial access (DRA) is a well-tolerated and effective alternative to traditional radial access (TRA) for coronary procedures. However, the comparative value of these modalities remains unknown in the emergency setting, particularly in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). OBJECTIVE: To compare DRA versus TRA for emergency coronary procedures through a meta-analysis. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify studies comparing DRA versus TRA in patients undergoing emergency coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). All statistical analyses were performed using R software version 4.3.1 with a random-effects model. RESULTS: We included four studies comprising 543 patients undergoing emergency CAG or PCI, of whom 447 (82.3%) had STEMI. As compared with TRA, DRA was associated with lower radial artery occlusion rates (RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.72) and shorter hemostasis time (MD, -4.23 h; 95% CI, -6.23 to 2.13). There was no significant difference between modalities in terms of puncture failure (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.31-6.19), crossover access (RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.42-4.44), puncture time (SMD, 0.33; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.81), procedure time (MD, 0.97 min; 95% CI, -5.19 to 7.13), or rates of cannulation success (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83-1.06). In terms of other periprocedural complications, there were no differences between both groups. These findings remained consistent in a subgroup analysis of patients with STEMI. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, DRA was superior to TRA in terms of radial artery occlusion and hemostasis time, with similar rates of periprocedural complications.

Very late outcomes of drug-eluting stents coated with biodegradable polymers: insights from the 5-year follow-up of the randomized PAINT trial.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the very long-term outcomes after implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) coated with biodegradable polymers (BP). This report presents the 5-year clinical follow-up of patients treated with BP-DES in the randomized PAINT trial. METHODS: The PAINT study is a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial that allocated 274 patients for treatment with two BP-DES formulations [paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) or sirolimus-eluting stents (SES)] or bare metal stents (BMS) in a 1:2:2 ratio, respectively. The primary end-point of this sub-study was defined as the composite of the major cardiac adverse events (MACE) cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 5 years. RESULTS: The 5-year MACE rates were different among the groups: 35.3%, 22.5% and 16.9% for BMS, PES and SES, respectively (P<0.05 for both DES vs. bare stent comparisons). The primary end-point was mainly driven by TVR: 31.8%, 14.1% and 12.2% for bare stents, PES and SES, respectively (P<0.05 for both DES vs. bare stent comparisons). The incidence of stent thrombosis (ST) was null for BMS during the entire follow-up. There was no definite or probable ST in the SES group after the second year, while one patient (1.0%) presented with a definite ST episode in the PES group between 4 and 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The tested biodegradable-polymer coated stents releasing either paclitaxel or sirolimus, compared with same bare metal platform, sustained their effectiveness in reducing combined major adverse cardiac events and re-intervention without an increase in ST during 5 years of follow-up.