Expandable sheath for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Procedural outcomes and complications

Bogdan Borz, Éric Durand, Christophe Tron, Matthieu Godin, Alexandre Canville, Camille Hauville, Alain Cribier, Hélène Eltchaninoff

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions · 2014 · 18 citations · 13 references

Concepts

Abstract

AIMS: It is currently unknown whether the expandable sheath (e-sheath) for transfemoral Edwards transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has a lower rate of access complications than the 18/19F fixed size sheath (f-sheath). Our aim was to compare the incidence of procedural complications when using f-sheath vs. e-sheath during TAVR. METHODS: We included 162 consecutive patients, implanted with the Edwards SAPIEN XT valve in our center. Access closure was obtained with the Prostar system in all cases. E-sheath was used in 80 patients (49%). RESULTS: Minimal ilio-femoral diameter was comparable in e-sheath and f-sheath groups: 6.7 (6.1-7.7) vs. 7 (6.2-8) mm, P = 0.25, as was the frequency of peripheral artery disease: 12.5% vs. 13.4%, P = 1.0. VARC major vascular complications rate was similar in the 2 groups: e-sheath 7 (8.8%) vs. f-sheath 6 (7.3%), P = 0.74, as was the incidence of minor vascular complications: 8 (10%) vs. 14 (17.1%), P = 0.19, life-threatening bleeding: 6 (7.5%) vs. 6 (7.3%), P = 0.96, major and minor bleeding and use of covered vascular stents: 9 (11%) vs. 6 (7.5%), P = 0.59. CONCLUSIONS: The e-sheath for TAVR with the Edwards valve did not show an advantage over the f-sheath in reducing vascular and bleeding complications.

References

13