Valvular & structural heart diseaseCohort study
Comparative environmental life cycle assessment between transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation and isolated surgical aortic valve replacement
- prospective, observational, single-centre study
- comprehensive comparative environmental life cycle assessment
Authors' conclusion
TF-TAVI outperformed SAVR in all environmental impact categories and had a carbon footprint of 38% that of SAVR. In TF-TAVI, 51% less material, 52% less energy and 97% less water were used. Despite these impressive results, there is still room for improvement in the environmental impact of TF-TAVI by using fewer disposable items, powering down idle imaging systems and introducing reusable/remanufactured valve delivery systems.
Study context
- Population
- Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement procedures in severe aortic stenosis15 transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) and 15 surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) procedures · TF-TAVI procedures 15 · SAVR procedures 15
- Participants
- 15 vs 15
- Exposure
- intraprocedural environmental impact of TF-TAVI vs SAVR
- TF-TAVIn = 15
- SAVRn = 15
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Material use
plastics TF-TAVI 69% · SAVR 84%
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Water consumption · higher in SAVR
30 times higher
Carbon footprint
| Outcome | Estimate |
|---|---|
| Electricity use · less in TF-TAVI than in SAVR | 52% |
- Water consumption: mainly due to the heating cooling system of the cardiopulmonary bypass in SAVR
Electricity use
- in both interventions, energy consumption was dominated by the use of electronic devices
Environmental impact categories
- In all 10 calculated environmental impact categories, SAVR had a greater life-cycle impact
Original publication
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it