Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 19, 2026
Upper-extremity Approach for Secondary Access in Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
Published on: August 8, 2025
Sutureless versus Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implant: A Propensity Score Matching Study
Giuseppe Santarpino1, Ferdinand Vogt2, Steffen Pfeiffer2
1Department of Cardiac Surgery, Paracelsus Medical University, Nuremberg, Germany. Electronic correspondence: g.santarpino@libero.it.
Background And Aim Of The Study:
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), especially via the transfemoral (TF) route, is increasingly performed in patients considered in the 'gray zone' between TAVI and surgery. However, the best treatment option in this patient population remains to be established.
Methods:
Since 2010, a total of 923 patients underwent either TAVI (n = 538) or sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) (n = 385) at the authors' institutions. Among these patients, 79 treated with TF-TAVI were compared with 79 propensity score-matched patients who had undergone elective isolated AVR with the sutureless Perceval bioprosthesis.
Results:
In-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between patients who underwent sutureless AVR or TF-TAVI (none versus three; 3.8%; p = 0.123). Similarly, postoperative complications were comparable between groups. Atrioventricular block requiring postoperative pacemaker implantation occurred in seven patients (9.2%) of the sutureless group and in eight patients (11.1%) of the TF-TAVI group (p = 0.455). The use of blood products varied between groups in terms of red blood cell transfusions (1.7 ± 2 versus 0.3 ± 0.9 units for the sutureless group versus TF-TAVI group; p <0.001). Paravalvular leakage at discharge was present in three patients (3.8%) in the sutureless group and in 26 patients (32.9%) in the TF-TAVI group (p <0.001). The mean follow up was longer for sutureless AVR (36 ± 21 versus 27 ± 20 months; p = 0.003). Survival rates were 97.5% and 84.8% in the sutureless and TF-TAVI groups, respectively (p = 0.001).
Conclusions:
Both, TF-TAVI and sutureless AVR are well-standardized, safe and effective procedures. TF-TAVI seems to be a valuable alternative to surgical AVR for frail patients, reducing the need for perioperative blood transfusion. In contrast, in patients with a favorable long-term survival outcome, minimally invasive AVR remains the procedure of choice as it is associated with better long-term results.
