Background. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a treatment strategy for patients with severe aortic stenosis. Although general anaesthesia (TAVI-GA) and sedation (TAVI-S) have previously been described for TAVI, the difference in safety and efficacy of both methods has not been studied in a randomized trial. Methods. The INSERT trial was a single centre, controlled parallel-group trial with balanced randomization. Sixty-six patients (68–94 yr) with acquired aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral CoreValve™ were assigned to TAVI-GA or TAVI-S. Comparable operative risk was determined from risk-scores (EUROscore, STS-Score). Monitoring and anaesthetic drugs were standardized. Near-Infrared-Spectroscopy was used to monitor cerebral-oxymetry blinded. Primary outcome was the perioperative cumulative cerebral desaturation. As secondary outcomes, changes in neurocognitive function and respiratory and haemodynamic adverse events were evaluated. Results. Of 66 included patients, 62 (TAVI-GA: n =31, TAVI-S: n =31) were finally analysed. Baseline characteristics were comparable. In 24 patients (39%) cerebral desaturation was observed. Cumulative cerebral desaturation was comparable (TAVI-GA:(median [IQR]) (0[0/1308] s%) vs. TAVI-S:(0[0/276] s%); P =0.505) between the groups. Neurocognitive function did not change within and between groups. Adverse events were more frequently observed in TAVI-S patients ( P <0.001). Bradypnoea ( n =16, 52%) and the need for airway manoeuvres ( n =11, 36%) or bag-mask-ventilation ( n =6, 19%) were the most common respiratory adverse events. Conclusions. Cerebral desaturation occurred in both patient groups, but there was no significant difference between the two groups. Based on primary outcome, both methods were shown to be comparable. Neurocognitive outcome was similar. The higher incidence of adverse events in the sedation group suggests a potential advantage of general anaesthesia. Clinical trial registration. NCT 01251328.

Background and Aims: Data from randomized trials investigating different access closure strategies after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) remain scarce. In this study, two vascular closure device (VCD) strategies to achieve haemostasis after TF-TAVI were compared. Methods: The ACCESS-TAVI (Comparison of Strategies for Vascular ACCESS Closure after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) is a prospective, multicentre trial in which patients undergoing TF-TAVI were randomly assigned to a strategy with a combined suture-/plug-based VCD strategy (suture/plug group) using one ProGlide™/ProStyle™ (Abbott Vascular) and one Angio-Seal® (Terumo) vs. a suture-based VCD strategy (suture-only group) using two ProGlides™/ProStyles™. The primary endpoint was a composite of major or minor access site-related vascular complications during index hospitalization according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria. Key secondary endpoints included time to haemostasis, bleeding type ≥ 2, and all-cause mortality over 30 days. Results: Between September 2022 and April 2024, 454 patients were randomized. The primary endpoint occurred in 27% (62/230) in the suture/plug group and 54% (121/224) in the suture-only group [relative risk .55 (95% confidence interval: .44, .68); P < .001]. Time to haemostasis was significantly shorter in the suture/plug group compared with the suture-only group (108 ± 208 s vs. 206 ± 171 s; P < .001). At 30 days, bleeding type ≥ 2 occurred less often in the suture/plug group compared with the suture-only group [6.2% vs. 12.1%, relative risk .66 (.43, 1.02); P = .032], with no significant difference in mortality. Conclusions: With regard to the composite of major or minor access site-related vascular complications, a combined suture-/plug-based VCD strategy was superior to a suture-based VCD strategy for vascular access closure in patients undergoing TF-TAVI.