Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

The Newcastle University research output collection, currently available on ePrints, will shortly be moving to a new open repository platform, Figshare. To prepare for the data migration we have paused adding new content to ePrints, and will resume once the new repository is launched. During this time you will continue to have access to ePrints (but no new content will appear). We will share updates here when available.

Single- Versus Dual-Access Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Using Balloon-Expandable Platform: A Propensity Score Matching Study

Lookup NU author(s): Muntaser Omari, Dr Rajiv Das, Professor Azfar ZamanORCiD, Dr Mohammad Alkhalil

Downloads


Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).


Abstract

© 2025 The AuthorsBackground: Vascular complications are more frequently encountered in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement. Single access (SA) TAVI may reduce access-site complications, but this approach has not been widely studied. Objectives: The aim of the study was to compare clinical outcomes of SA vs dual access (DA) TAVI using balloon-expandable valve Sapien 3 Ultra. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent TAVI using balloon-expandable valve. Data were prospectively entered into a dedicated web-based database. The co-primary endpoints were device success and 30-day safety endpoints, defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3. A propensity score matching with a 1:1 ratio was performed comparing SA vs DA TAVI. Results: Of 532 patients who had transfemoral TAVI, 117 (22%) underwent the SA approach. Propensity score matching analysis yielded a well-balanced 204 patients (102 in each group). SA was associated with a significant reduction in contrast use, fluoroscopy time, radiation exposure, and total procedure time. Device success was comparable between the 2 groups (3.9% vs 3.9%; OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.24-4.11; P > 0.99). The 30-day safety profile of the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 was significantly better in patients who underwent SA vs DA TAVI (15.0% vs 28.9%; OR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.22-0.88; P = 0.02). This was derived from a lower incidence of severe paravalvular regurgitation and new pacemaker implantation. Conclusions: SA is a feasible and safe strategy compared to DA TAVI. It was associated with quicker procedure times, lower contrast and radiation exposure, and a better 30-day safety profile than the DA strategy. Future randomized studies are needed to further assess this strategy.


Publication metadata

Author(s): Omari M, Diaz Nuila ME, Abdalwahab A, Stewart D, Edwards R, Das R, Zaman A, Farag M, Alkhalil M

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: JACC: Advances

Year: 2025

Volume: 4

Issue: 9

Print publication date: 01/09/2025

Online publication date: 21/08/2025

Acceptance date: 19/07/2025

Date deposited: 01/09/2025

ISSN (electronic): 2772-963X

Publisher: Elsevier B.V.

URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacadv.2025.102086

DOI: 10.1016/j.jacadv.2025.102086


Altmetrics

Altmetrics provided by Altmetric


Share