Search

Summary Background Transfemoral percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) is a safe, reproducible and established procedure, mainly performed under local anaesthesia, which is mostly administered and monitored by a dedicated anaesthesia team (regular approach). Our centre has developed a standardized pathway of care, and eligible patients are selected for a minimalist TF-TAVI, entirely managed by operators without the presence of the anaesthesia team in the operating room, like most interventional coronary procedures (“percutaneous coronary intervention-like” approach [PCI approach]). Aim To compare the safety and efficacy of TF-TAVI performed with the PCI approach versus the regular approach. Methods The analysis population comprised all patients who underwent TF-TAVI with the PCI or regular approach in our institution from November 2016 to July 2019. The two co-primary endpoints were early safety composite and early efficacy composite at 30 days as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2. The PCI (n = 137) and Regular (n = 221) approaches were compared using the propensity score based method of inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results No differences were observed after comparison of TAVI performed with the PCI or regular approach regarding the composite safety endpoint (7.3% vs. 11.3%; odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 1.07; P = 0.086) or the composite efficacy endpoint (4.4% vs. 6.3%; odds ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.41 to 1.49; P = 0.45). Conclusions This study suggests that the efficacy and safety of TF-TAVI entirely managed by a PCI approach for selected patients are not different to those when TF-TAVI is performed with the attendance of a full anaesthesia care team. The PCI approach appears to be a safe and efficient clinical pathway, providing an appropriate and rational utilization of anaesthesiology resources, and could be used for the majority of TF-TAVI procedures.

Summary Aim To assess the feasibility and safety of a hybrid myocardial revascularization strategy combining “exclusive arterial” conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) followed by early drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods Eighteen consecutive patients with multivessel CAD were enrolled prospectively. Within 48 hours of CABG using left internal mammary artery (IMA) to left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery with or without right IMA to non-LAD vessel in an open chest approach, DESs were implanted systematically in an additional vessel after a clopidogrel 300-mg preloading dose. This group was compared with 18 matched patients who underwent standard CABG alone using left IMA to LAD and at least one additional graft. Results Baseline clinical characteristics were similar in both groups. There were 46 grafts in the CABG group and 28 in the hybrid group. In the hybrid group, 27.8% of patients were treated off-pump versus none in the CABG group; a median of 2 (interquartile range: 1–2) stents was implanted per patient. The hybrid procedure was associated with shorter durations of cardiopulmonary bypass (77 [67–100] min versus 97 [90–105] min, P = 0.049). Major bleeding rates were higher in the CABG group, but the difference was not statistically significant (44.4% versus 11.1%, P = 0.06). Re-intervention for bleeding was not needed in either group. One (5.6%) myocardial infarction occurred in hospital in each group following CABG. At 1 year, the cumulative rates of major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization) were similar (11.2% in hybrid group versus 5.6% in CABG group, P = 0.99). One death occurred in the CABG group and one target vessel revascularization in the hybrid group. Conclusion A hybrid revascularization strategy, combining conventional CABG with exclusive arterial conduits followed by early DES implantation, is feasible. One-year event rates compare favourably to those with traditional CABG alone.