Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 290

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Safety and Efficacy of the Subclavian Approach for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With the CoreValve Revalving System

Open access
Petronio, Anna Sonia, De Carlo, Marco, Bedogni, Francesco, Marzocchi, Antonio, Klugmann, Silvio, Maisano, Francesco, Ramondo, Angelo, Ussia, Gian Paolo, Ettori, Federica, Poli, Arnaldo, Brambilla, Nedy, Saia, Francesco, De Marco, Federico, Colombo, Antonio·2010·Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions

Abstract

Background—: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a new option for patients with severe aortic stenosis at high surgical risk. The standard retrograde approach through the femoral artery is contraindicated in case of unfavorable iliofemoral anatomy or extensive disease. In these patients, a trans-subclavian approach may be feasible. Methods and Results—: Between June 2007 and July 2009, TAVI with the CoreValve bioprosthesis (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn) was performed in 514 consecutive patients at 13 Italian hospitals, using the subclavian approach in 54 cases. The median logistic EuroSCORE was significantly higher in the subclavian (19.4; interquartile range, 12.5 to 29.8) versus femoral group (25.3; interquartile range, 15.1 to 36.6) ( P =0.03), as well as the rate of comorbidities. Procedural success was obtained in 100% versus 98.4% of the subclavian versus femoral groups, respectively ( P =0.62), with intraprocedural mortality of 0% versus 0.9% ( P =1.00). The most common in-hospital complications were a new left bundle-branch block (22.4%) and the need for pacemaker (16.3%). No specific complications for the subclavian access (vessel rupture, vertebral or internal mammary ischemia) were reported. The learning curve for the subclavian approach led to a wider use of local anesthesia. Thirty-day mortality was 0% versus 6.1% in the subclavian versus femoral groups, respectively ( P =0.13). Six-month mortality rate was 9.4% versus 15.8% ( P =0.44), whereas valve-related adverse events were 13.6% versus 13.9% ( P =0.79). Conclusions—: TAVI through the subclavian approach appeared feasible and safe, with excellent procedural success and low in-hospital complication rates. This new technique allows patients with contraindications to the femoral approach to be treated with TAVI.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circinterventions.109.930453

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 19 references

Cited by

See all 290

Metadata

Authors
Petronio, A. S., De Carlo, M., Bedogni, F., Marzocchi, A., Klugmann, S., Maisano, F., Ramondo, A., Ussia, G. P., Ettori, F., Poli, A., Brambilla, N., Saia, F., De Marco, F., & Colombo, A.
Venue
Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions
Published
2010-08
Volume
3
Issue
4
Pages
359-366
ISSN
  • 1941-7632 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-7640
OpenAlex
W1985947431
Cited by
290
References
19
FWCI
29.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Safety and Efficacy of the Subclavian Approach for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With the CoreValve Revalving System. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circinterventions.109.930453
The paper
Petronio, A. S., De Carlo, M., Bedogni, F., Marzocchi, A., Klugmann, S., Maisano, F., Ramondo, A., Ussia, G. P., Ettori, F., Poli, A., Brambilla, N., Saia, F., De Marco, F., & Colombo, A. (2010). Safety and Efficacy of the Subclavian Approach for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With the CoreValve Revalving System. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. https://doi.org/10.1161/circinterventions.109.930453

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.