Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 May 1;83(6):E227-32. doi: 10.1002/ccd.25390. Epub 2014 Jan 31.

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

Author information

1
Department of Cardiology, Charles Nicolle University Hospital, INSERM U 1096, 1 rue de Germont, Rouen Cedex, 76031, France.

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.

KEYWORDS:

expandable sheath; transcatheter aortic valve replacement; vascular complication

PMID:
24403004
DOI:
10.1002/ccd.25390
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley
Loading ...
Support Center