Surgical versus percutaneous femoral access for delivery of large-bore cardiovascular devices (from the PARTNER Trial)

It is unclear if surgical exposure confers a risk advantage compared with a percutaneous approach for patients undergoing endovascular procedures requiring large-bore femoral artery access. From the randomized controlled Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve trials A and B and the continued access registries, a total of 1,416 patients received transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement, of which 857 underwent surgical, and 559 underwent percutaneous access. Thirty-day rates of major vascular complications and quality of life scores were assessed. Propensity matching was used to adjust for unmeasured confounders. Overall, there were 116 major vascular complications (8.2%). Complication rates decreased dramatically during the study period. In unadjusted analysis, major vascular complications were significantly less common in the percutaneous access group (35 [6.3%] vs 81 [9.5%] p = 0.032). However, among 292 propensity-matched pairs, there was no difference in major vascular complications (22 [7.5%] vs 28 [9.6%], p = 0.37). Percutaneous access was associated with fewer total in-hospital vascular complications (46 [16%] vs 66 [23%], p = 0.036), shorter median procedural duration (97 interquartile range [IQR 68 to 166] vs 121 [IQR 78 to 194] minutes, p <0.0001), and median length of stay (4 [IQR 2 to 8] vs 6 [IQR 3 to 10] days, p <0.0001). There were no significant differences in quality of life scores at 30 days. Surgical access for large-bore femoral access does not appear to confer any advantages over percutaneous access and may be associated with more minor vascular complications.