Abstract 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.
PDF