Retrograde Versus Antegrade Percutaneous Aortic Balloon Valvuloplasty: Immediate, Short- and Long-Term Outcome at 2 Years

Background: The short- and long-term vascular risks and hemodynamic benefits of antegrade versus retrograde percutaneous aortic balloon valvuloplasty (PAV) have not been clearly established. With the advent of percutaneous aortic valve replacement strategies, more valvuloplasties are being performed. The antegrade approach may reduce vascular complications, particularly in patients with peripheral vascular disease (PVD). Comparing the clinical efficacy and complications of each technique is warranted. Methods: A cohort of 157 consecutive patients undergoing PAV between 2000 and 2006 were included in the study. Of these, 46 (29%) patients underwent antegrade PAV and 111 (71%) retrograde PAV. Choice of vascular approach (antegrade or retrograde) were determined by operator preference. The rate of death, nonfatal vascular complications, and 2-year survival was explored. Results: The mean age of the study population was 79 years. Patients undergoing antegrade PAV were more likely hypertensive (56% vs. 39%, P = 0.001) with PVD (41% vs. 18%, P = 0.004). Nevertheless, logistic Euroscores were no different between the groups (antegrade 18% vs. retrograde 14%; P = 0.30). Baseline and postprocedural valve areas were also similar. However, patients undergoing antegrade PAV had significantly fewer vascular complications (2% vs. 19%; P = 0.005). Two-year follow-up revealed no significant difference in death (antegrade 81% vs. retrograde 69%; P = 0.16), stroke, congestive heart failure, and surgical aortic valve replacement. Conclusions: The hemodynamic benefit of PAV occurs regardless of the selected vascular approach. The antegrade technique results in significantly fewer vascular complications and similar long-term outcomes. Antegrade PAV is feasible and safe, particularly in patients with PVD. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.