Comparison of Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Performed in the Catheterization Laboratory (Minimalist Approach) Versus Hybrid Operating Room (Standard Approach): Outcomes and Cost Analysis

OBJECTIVES:

The aim of this study was to compare transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF TAVR) performed in a catheterization laboratory (minimalist approach [MA]) with TF TAVR performed in a hybrid operating room (standard approach [SA]).

BACKGROUND:

A MA-TF TAVR can be performed without general anesthesia, transesophageal echocardiography, or a surgical hybrid room. The outcomes and cost of MA-TF TAVR compared with those of the SA have not been described.

METHODS:

Patients who underwent elective, percutaneous TF TAVR using the Edwards Sapien valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) were studied. Baseline characteristics, outcomes, and hospital costs of MA-TF TAVR and SA-TF TAVR were compared.

RESULTS:

A total of 142 patients were studied (MA-TF TAVR, n = 70 and SA-TF TAVR, n = 72). There were no differences in baseline comorbidities (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, 10.6 ± 4.3 vs. 11.4 ± 5.8; p = 0.35). All procedures in the MA-TF TAVR group were successful; 1 patient was intubated. Three patients in the SA-TF TAVR group had procedure-related death. Procedure room time (150 ± 48 min vs. 218 ± 56 min, p < 0.001), total intensive care unit time (22 h vs. 28 h, p < 0.001), length of stay from procedure to discharge (3 days vs. 5 days, p < 0.001), and cost ($45,485 ± 14,397 vs. $55,377 ± 22,587, p < 0.001) were significantly less in the MA-TF TAVR group. Mortality at 30 days was not significantly different in the MA-TF TAVR group (0 vs. 6%, p = 0.12) and 30-day stroke/transient ischemic attack was similar (4.3% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.35). Moderate or severe paravalvular leak and device success were similar in the MA-TF TAVR and SA-TF TAVR groups (3% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.4 and 90% vs. 88%, p = 0.79, respectively) at 30 days. At a median follow-up of 435 days, there was no significant difference in survival (MA-TF TAVR, 83% vs. SA-TF TAVR, 82%; p = 0.639).

CONCLUSIONS:

MA-TF TAVR can be performed with minimal morbidity and mortality and equivalent effectiveness compared with SA-TF TAVR. The shorter length of stay and lower resource use with MA-TF TAVR significantly lowers hospital costs.