ObjectiveTo systematically assess the efficacy and safety of percutaneous access and surgical cutdown in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI).MethodsWe searched databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, OVID, Embase, China National Knowledge Internet and Wanfang Database to collect randomized or non-randomized controlled trials comparing percutaneous access (PC group, the trial/exposure group) with surgical cutdown (SC group, the control group) in TF-TAVI between January 2002 and October 2017. The quality evaluation and data extraction were carried out by 2 reviewers independently. The Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3.5 software.ResultsA total of 11 literatures involving 4 893 aortic valve stenosis patients treated by TF-TAVI (2 877 patients in PC group and 2 016 patients in SC group) were included in this Meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between PC and SC group in terms of major vascular complications [odds ratio (OR)=0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.70, 1.06), P=0.17], minor vascular complications [OR=1.43, 95%CI (0.87, 2.37), P=0.16], major bleeding [OR=1.02, 95%CI (0.55, 1.90), P=0.94], minor bleeding [OR=0.90, 95%CI (0.51, 1.61), P=0.73] and all-cause mortality within 30 days [OR=1.03, 95%CI (0.76, 1.40), P=0.85]. As for the length of stay after TAVI, there was significant difference between the two groups [standard mean difference=–0.32, 95%CI (–0.52, –0.12), P=0.002].ConclusionPercutaneous access is as effective and safe as surgical cutdown in TF-TAVI, meanwhile leading to shorter length of stay after TAVI.
