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 Life-sciences, 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. (C) 2014 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.