Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
218 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2020-12-08
2024-03-20
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Evidence guiding the decision of whether to perform TAVR under GA or LA-CS is limited to non-randomized trials and registry data Current evidence is however limited by probable patient selection bias, methodological variability between studies, various methods of anesthesia and a lack of agreement regarding appropriate clinical end-points. The potential benefits of TAVR with LA include reduced procedure time, shorter intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, reduced need for intraprocedural vasopressor support, and the potential to perform the procedure without the direct presence of an anesthetist for cost-saving reasons. As LA with CS is preferred with good results in main centers, GA may be useful to facilitate intraprocedural TOE which is necessary in case of intraprocedural complications and may facilitate the procedure for the physician particularly when the patient is anxious or disturbed. A resulted better concentration without precipitation may influence the outcomes in term of valve positioning. The patient comfort could also be better during femoral puncture or rapid pacing. The aim of the study is to compare transfemoral TAVR under general anesthesia (experimental group) versus local anaesthesia with sedation (control group) with a safety primary combined end point of adverse events at 72 h follow-up (hemodynamic parameters and VARC 3 criteria). Secondary end points include hospitalization length, satisfaction of the patients and operators and 30 days mortality.
The hypothesis is a non inferoirity of the GA staregy regarding the primary end point.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
General Anesthesia Versus Loco-Regional Anesthesia for Transcarotid Trancatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
NCT06870734
Conscious Sedation vs General Anesthesia in TAVR Patients
NCT03084978
Impact of Anesthesia Technique on Post-operative Delirium After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
NCT03323619
Monitored Anesthesia Care vs. General Anesthesia for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
NCT04107038
Near INfrared Spectroscopy in Aortic valvE ReplacemenT
NCT01251328
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The purpose of this study is to compare the safety (primary outcome) and efficiency (secondary outcome) of local anesthesia (LA) with conscious sedation (CS) versus general anesthesia (GA) for the TAVR procedure performed with transfemoral access.
This is a blindly randomized, non-inferiority controlled trial. The study will include all consecutive patients referred to the Cardiology Department of the CHU of Montpellier, France, for TAVR by transfemoral access which is the default strategy. Procedure is indicated for severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis with high or intermediate surgical risk or with contraindication to surgery and after decision of the multidisciplinary team according to the current recommendations of the European society of cardiology. Patients are randomized into two groups with surgical risk stratification : one with general anesthesia (experimental group) and one with local anesthesia with sedation: (control group) in a 1/1 ratio. Exclusion criteria include contraindication to GA or LA-CS based on hemodynamic status or comorbidities. The primary composite endpoint combines the major peri and post-operative adverse events (72 hours), including hemodynamic instability and major complications (VARC 3 criteria). Secondary criteria include length of intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization and total hospital stay, duration of intervention, analgesic dose up to 72 hours, finger oximetry results, transition to GA in the AL group, fluoroscopic time, patient and operator satisfaction (questionnaires for patients, interventional cardiologists and anesthesiologists) and mortality at 30 day follow-up.
It is expected that 20% of patients will have an event defined by the main judgement outcome. To balance the various expected benefits of LA-CS over the length of stay, duration in ICUC and opioid drug use, the non-inferiority threshold was set at an absolute difference of up to 15%, or 35% of event rates in the experimental arm.
Based on this threshold and the above assumptions, and using 80% power and 5% Type I error (for a one-sided test), 109 patients are must be included in each arm, for a total of 218 patients with a randomization rate of 1:1.
The inclusion period will be 24 months or as soon as the required number of subjects is reached. Follow-up includes a medical assessment during the peri-operative period (72h) and at the end of the hospital stay and a clinical evaluation by phone survey at 30 days.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
General Anesthesia
\- General anesthesia : After pre-anesthetic preparation (25-50 mg Hydroxizine orally), the anesthesia induction will be performed by IV perfusion of Propofol 1 to 2 mg/kg, Sufentanyl for analgesia 0,2 to 0,4 µg/kg, curarisation with Atracurium 0,15 mg/kg. The anaethesia depth will be monitored by the bispectral index (BIS). Orotracheal intubation will be performed, the patient will be ventilated to controlled volume with 6-8 mL/kg of current volume based on expected body weight (PBW). The respiratory rate will be adjusted to have an ETCO2 between 35 and 45 mmHg. The anesthesia will be maintained through the Sevorane at 0.7-1 MAC, the average blood pressure will be controlled through a pressure cuff with a target between 60 and 80 mmHg. The Fio2 will be adapted to obtain saturation \> 94% with 5 cmH2O PEEP.
TAVR
Femoral percutaneous aortic prosthesis (TAVR)
Local Anesthesia
Local anesthesia at the device introduction site will be obtained by infiltration of Naropein.
TAVR
Femoral percutaneous aortic prosthesis (TAVR)
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
TAVR
Femoral percutaneous aortic prosthesis (TAVR)
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Consecutive patients referred to the cardiology department of the CHU in Montpellier, France, for TAVI via transfemoral access.
* Patients for whom the procedure is indicated after decision by the heart team and according to the current recommendations of the European Society of Cardiology.
* Patients with severe aortic stenosis defined by mean gradient \> 40 mmHg and/or aortic valve area 1 cm2 or 0.8 cm2/m2 as recommended. May also include patients with low gradient (\< 40mm hg) and low flow (stroke volume index \< 35ml/minute) which are classic indications for aortic valve replacement
* Ability to consent to participate in study
* Patient affiliated with or beneficiary of a social security scheme
Exclusion Criteria
* Pulmonary hypertension above 50mmHg
* BMI\>35
* TAVI by carotidian or apical way
* Pregnant women
* Vulnerable person according to L1121-6 of Public Health reglementation in France
18 Years
80 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University Hospital, Montpellier
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
University hospital
Montpellier, , France
University hospital
Nîmes, , France
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
UF7825
Identifier Type: OTHER
Identifier Source: secondary_id
2020-A00497-32
Identifier Type: OTHER
Identifier Source: secondary_id
RECHMPL19_0350
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.