Percutaneous versus surgical cut-down access in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A meta-analysis

Background The transfemoral (TF) approach has become the preferred approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) because of its low risk profile. However, the relative safety of the percutaneous approach (PC) compared to surgical cut‐down (SC) remains unclear. Our aim was to compare the outcomes between PC versus SC access in patients undergoing TF‐TAVR using a meta‐analysis. Methods We conducted a systematic electronic database search for studies reporting major and minor vascular complications (VC), major and minor bleeding, and perioperative all‐cause mortality, in PC versus SC TF‐TAVR cases. Complications were reported based on the Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria. A random‐effects model was used to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Results Eight observational cohort studies and one randomized control trial (2513 patients in PC and 1767 patients in SC) were included in the analysis. Major and minor VC, as well as bleeding complications, were comparable between the two approaches. The need for surgical intervention for VC was comparable between PC and SC. There was no difference in perioperative all‐cause mortality. Conclusions PC and SC have similar safety profiles and outcomes when used appropriately in selected patients.