ABSTRACT
Context: Several studies have analyzed the long‑term survival after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, no previous studies have looked at survival beyond 1‑year with respect to the type of anesthesia. Aims: The aim was to evaluate the mid‑term survival after TAVI with respect to the type of anesthesia (general anesthesia [GA] vs. local anesthesia ± sedation [LASedation]) or the type of procedure (transfemoral [transfem] vs. transapical TAVI) performed. Settings and Design: Retrospective cohort study. Subjects and Methods: This retrospective study included TAVI’s between January 2009 and June 2013. Patients were divided into three groups: transfem TAVI under GA, transfem TAVI under LASedation and transapical TAVI. A total of 176 patients were eligible. The following clinical outcomes were evaluated: (1) Mortality, (2) Major cardiovascular complications, (3) Conduction abnormalities and arrhythmias, (4) Acute kidney injury, (5) Aortic regurgitation, (6) Neurologic events, (7) Vascular complications, (8) Pulmonary complications, (9) Bleeding, (10) Infectious complications, (11) Delirium. Statistical Analysis Used: A Kruskal–Wallis test was performed to test significance between the three groups for quantitative variables. Categorical variables were compared using a Chi‑square test. Survival was estimated using Kaplan–Meier method. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the survival of both transfem TAVI’s (P = 0.46). The short‑term outcome of the transfem TAVI groups was better than the transapical arm, but their mid‑term survival did not show any significant difference (P = 0.69 transapical vs. transfem GA; P = 0.07 transapical vs. transfem LASedation). Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that the type of anesthesia and the access route do not influence mid‑term survival after TAVI.