ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Large-bore arteriotomy for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) requires percutaneous vascular closure devices, but real-world data comparing different closure strategies are limited. AIMS: We sought to compare a dual ProGlide strategy vs a combination of one ProGlide and one FemoSeal for vascular closure after TAVI. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 874 propensity score-matched patients undergoing TAVI at the Munich University Hospital from August 2018 to October 2020. From August 2018 to August 2019, a dual ProGlide strategy was used for vascular closure. From October 2019 to October 2020, a combination of one ProGlide and one FemoSeal was used. The primary endpoint was defined as access-related major vascular complications or bleeding ≥Type 2 according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria. RESULTS: Patients in the dual ProGlide group (n=437) had a higher incidence of the primary endpoint than patients treated with one ProGlide and one FemoSeal (n=437; 11.4% vs 3.0%; p<0.001). Furthermore, they had a higher rate of closure device failure (2.7% vs 0.9%; p=0.044) and more often required unplanned surgery or endovascular treatment (3.9% vs 0.9%; p=0.004). The incidence of death did not differ significantly between groups (3.4% vs 1.6%; p=0.08). CONCLUSIONS: A combined ProGlide and FemoSeal strategy might have the potential to reduce access-related vascular complications following TAVI.
Subject(s)
Aortic Valve Stenosis , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement , Vascular Closure Devices , Humans , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/adverse effects , Aortic Valve Stenosis/surgery , Retrospective Studies , Femoral Artery/surgery , Treatment Outcome , Vascular Closure Devices/adverse effects , Hemostasis , Aortic Valve/diagnostic imaging , Aortic Valve/surgery , Hemostatic Techniques/adverse effectsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic value of Bruch's membrane opening minimum rim width (BMO-MRW) and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness (RNFLT) in patients with ocular hypertension, preperimetric, and perimetric glaucoma. METHODS: One hundred eighty-one eyes consisting of 40 healthy controls, 41 ocular hypertensive subjects, 50 subjects with preperimetric glaucoma and 50 with perimetric glaucoma were included. One randomly selected eye was included. All patients underwent slit-lamp examination, funduscopy, achromatic perimetry, and 24-hour IOP profile. Bruch's membrane opening-MRW and RNFLT (3 peripapillary circle scans, 12°/14°/16°) data were obtained using spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROC) as well as sensitivity at fixed specificity were computed globally and for six vertical split sectors. Venn diagrams were plotted to identify patients that were diagnosed by one of the two parameters only. RESULTS: For RNFLT the smallest circle diameter showed highest diagnostic accuracy and was used for comparison with BMO-MRW. Distinguishing perimetric glaucoma, RNFLT and BMO-MRW showed comparable AUROCs in global (AUROC, 95% confidence interval: 0.954, 0.911-0.996 and 0.929, 0.872-0.986) and sectoral (0.929, 0.877-0.981 and 0.946, 0.904-0.996) analysis. For preperimetric glaucoma BMO-MRW and RNFLT also demonstrated comparable performance in global (0.839, 0.757-0.921 and 0.821, 0.731-0.912) and sectoral (0.860, 0.782-0.938 and 0.835, 0.750-0.920) analysis. When identifying ocular hypertensive eyes AUROCs were lower for global RNFLT and BMO-MRW (0.493, 0.365-0.621 and 0.562, 0.433-0.691). A combined parameter showed an AUROC of 0.959, 0.921 to 0.996 for perimetric and 0.849, 0.770 to 0.929 for preperimetric glaucoma. CONCLUSIONS: Bruch's membrane opening-MRW and RNFLT are comparably useful parameters for discrimination of preperimetric and perimetric glaucomatous eyes and show potential to assist each other in glaucoma diagnosis. (www.ClinicalTrials.gov number, NTC00494923; Erlangen Glaucoma Registry.).
