2-year results of CoreValve implantation through the subclavian access: A propensity-matched comparison with the femoral access

Anna Sonia Petronio, Marco De Carlo, Francesco Bedogni, Francesco Maisano, Federica Ettori, Silvio Klugmann, Arnaldo Poli, Antonio Marzocchi, Gennaro Santoro, Massimo Napodano, Gian Paolo Ussia, Cristina Giannini, Nedy Brambilla, Antonio Colombo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Objectives: The goal of this study was to assess the procedural and 2-year results of the subclavian approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared with those of the femoral approach by using propensity-matched analysis. Background: The subclavian approach with the CoreValve prosthesis (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota) represents an interesting opportunity when the femoral access is unfeasible. Methods: All consecutive patients enrolled in the Italian CoreValve Registry who underwent TAVI with the subclavian approach were included. Propensity score analysis was used to identify a matching group of patients undergoing femoral TAVI. Results: Subclavian approach was used in 141 patients (61% men; median age 83 years; median logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score 23.7%). The femoral group of 141 patients was matched for baseline clinical characteristics, except for peripheral artery disease. The 2 groups showed similar procedural success (97.9% vs. 96.5%; p = 0.47), major vascular complications (5.0% vs. 7.8%; p = 0.33), life-threatening bleeding events (7.8% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.48), and combined safety endpoint (19.9% vs. 25.5%; p = 0.26). The subclavian group showed lower rates of acute kidney injury/stage 3 (4.3% vs. 9.9%; p = 0.02), of minor vascular complications at the 18-F sheath insertion site (2.1% vs. 11.3%; p = 0.003), and of all types of bleeding events related to vascular complications. Survival at 2 years was 74.0 ± 4.0% in the subclavian group compared with 73.7 ± 3.9% in the femoral group (p = 0.78). The 2-year freedom from cardiovascular death was 87.2 ± 3.1% versus 88.7 ± 2.8% in the subclavian versus femoral group, respectively (p = 0.84). Conclusions: The subclavian approach for TAVI is safe and feasible, with procedural and medium-term results similar to the femoral approach. Subclavian access should be considered a valid option not only when the femoral approach is impossible but also when it is difficult, albeit feasible.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)502-507
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American College of Cardiology
Issue number6
Publication statusPublished - Aug 7 2012


  • aortic stenosis
  • subclavian
  • transcatheter aortic valve implantation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine


Dive into the research topics of '2-year results of CoreValve implantation through the subclavian access: A propensity-matched comparison with the femoral access'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this