Rajeswaran, Jeevanantham

ObjectivesTo identify number of cases needed to maximize device success and minimize adverse events after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF‐TAVR), and determine if adverse events were linked to the technical performance learning curve.BackgroundTF‐TAVR is a complex procedure with an incompletely characterized learning curve for clinical outcomes.MethodsFrom 4/2007–2/2012, 1521 patients underwent TF‐TAVR in the PARTNER‐I trial. Outcomes learning curves were defined as number of cases needed to reach a plateau for device success, adverse events, and post‐procedure length of stay. Institutional variation was accounted for by mixed‐model non‐linear techniques, which were also used to identify contribution of the procedure time learning curve to 30‐day major adverse events and length of stay.ResultsEighty percent device success was achieved after 22 cases; major vascular complications fell below 5% after 70 cases and major bleeding below 10% after 25 cases. It took an average of 28 cases to achieve a consistent low risk of 30‐day major adverse events, but institutions entering in the middle of the trial achieved it after about 26. The most significant correlate of 30‐day major adverse events and post‐procedure length of stay was procedure time (P < 0.0001). However, this association was related to patient and unmeasured variables, not the procedure time learning curve (P = 0.6).ConclusionsBy end of trial, a consistent low risk of adverse events was achieved after ∼26 cases. However, these improved results were due to change in patient risk profile; outcomes were not linked to the technical performance learning curve. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

ObjectivesTo assess technical performance learning curves of teams performing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF‐TAVR).BackgroundTF‐TAVR is a new procedure for treating severe aortic stenosis. The number of cases required for procedural efficiency is unknown.MethodsIn the PARTNER‐I trial, 1,521 patients underwent TF‐TAVR from 4/2007–2/2012. Learning curve analysis of technical performance metrics was performed using institution‐specific patient sequence number, interval between procedures, and institutional trial entry date. Learning curve characteristics were assessed using semi‐parametric and parametric mixed‐effects models.ResultsAs patient sequence number increased, average procedure time decreased from 154 to 85 minutes (P < 0.0001), and fluoroscopy time from 28 to 20 minutes (P < 0.0001). Procedure time plateaued at an average of 83 minutes (range 52–140). Procedure time plateau was dynamic during the course of the trial, averaging 25 cases (range 21–52) by its end. The later institutions enrolled in the trial, the shorter the initial procedure time. During the trial, percutaneous rather than surgical access increased from 7.9% to 69%.ConclusionsTechnical performance learning curves exist for TF‐TAVR; procedural efficiency increased with experience, with concomitant decreases in radiation and contrast media exposure. The number of cases needed to achieve efficiency decreased progressively, with optimal procedural performance reached after approximately 25 cases for late‐entering institutions. Knowledge and experience accumulated by early TF‐TAVR institutions were disseminated, shortening the learning curve of late‐entering institutions. Technological advances resulting from learning during the trial moved the field from initial conservative surgical cut‐down to percutaneous access for most patients. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background— The higher risk of adverse outcomes after transapical (TA) versus transfemoral (TF) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) could be attributable to TA-TAVR being an open surgical procedure or to clinical differences between TA- and TF-TAVR patients. We compared outcomes after neutralizing patient differences using propensity score matching. Methods and Results— From April 2007 to February 2012, 1100 Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER)-I patients underwent TA-TAVR and 1521 underwent TF-TAVR with Edwards SAPIEN balloon-expandable bioprostheses. Propensity matching based on 111 preprocedural variables, exclusive of femoral access morphology, identified 501 well-matched patient pairs (46% of possible matches), 95% of whom had peripheral arterial disease. Matched TA-TAVR patients experienced more adverse procedural events, longer length of stay (5 versus 8 days; P <0.0001), and slower recovery (New York Heart Association class I, 31% versus 38% at 30 days, equalizing by 6 months at 51% versus 47%); stroke risk was similar (3.4% versus 3.3% at 30 days and 6.0% versus 6.7% at 3 years); mortality was elevated for the first 6 postprocedural months (19% versus 12%; P =0.01); but aortic regurgitation was less (34% versus 52% mild and 8.9% versus 12% moderate to severe at discharge, P =0.001; 36% versus 50% mild and 10% versus 15% moderate to severe at 6 months, P <0.0001). Conclusions— The likelihood of adverse periprocedural events and prolonged recovery is greater after TA-TAVR than TF-TAVR in vasculopathic patients after accounting for differences in cardiovascular risk factors, although stroke risk is equivalent and aortic regurgitation is less. As smaller delivery systems permit TF-TAVR in many of these patients, we recommend a TF-first access strategy for TAVR when anatomically feasible. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00530894.