Carotid access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A meta‐analysis

Access Options for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was introduced in 2002 and has become integral in the management of aortic stenosis. As an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement, it relies heavily on safe access to the aortic annulus for implantation of a valve prosthesis. Throughout its development and in current practice, the transfemoral (TF) arterial route for retrograde valve delivery has been the primary approach. However, this route is not appropriate for all patients, which has led to the development of multiple alternate access options. This review discusses the development of access for TAVR, followed by a thorough discussion of TF access. The commercially available products, preprocedural planning, closure techniques, and procedural complications are all discussed. We also describe the various alternate access routes with particular emphasis on the most recently developed route, transcaval access (TCv), with focus on procedural indications, technical considerations, and comparative outcomes. As TAVR technology, indications, and availability all expand, the knowledge and implementation of safe access are of utmost importance.

Transcaval access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Anatomical factors may preclude transfemoral (TF) arterial access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Transcaval (TCav) access has been utilized as an alternative access for these patients. We aimed to investigate the outcomes of TCav access in patients undergoing TAVI.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis including all published studies from 1996 to November 2023 that examined TCav access in patients undergoing TAVI. The main outcomes included all cause mortality, major vascular complications, major bleeding, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI). Outcomes were reported at 30-day and 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

We included 8 observational studies with a total of 517 patients (mean age 78.1±8 years, 56.6 % women, mean STS score 7 ± 4.5). Mean (SD) procedure time was 35 ± 9.8 mins and mean (SD) contrast volume was 136.3 ± 77.4 ml. Procedure success was achieved in 94.3 % of the patients. At 30-day follow-up, all-cause mortality occurred in 6.4 %, major bleeding in 12.2 %, blood transfusion in 23.3 %, retroperitoneal bleeding in 19 %, major vascular complications in 7.9 %, MI in 2.8 %, and AKI in 6.4 % of patients. At 1-year, all-cause mortality was 14.7 %. In a sub-group analysis including 3 studies comparing TCav (n = 316) to alternative accesses (including transcarotid, transaxillary, and transapical) (n = 303), there were no differences in all-cause mortality, major bleeding, major vascular complications, blood transfusion, or stroke at 30-day.

CONCLUSION

Transcaval approach is feasible and non-inferior to other alternative accesses in TAVI patients with prohibitive iliofemoral anatomy.

Meta-Analysis on Transcarotid Versus Transfemoral and Other Alternate Accesses for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcarotid access has emerged as the preferred access site for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with prohibitive iliofemoral anatomy. This study aimed to compare outcomes with transcarotid with those of other accesses in patients who underwent TAVI. Cochrane, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases were searched for all published studies that compared outcomes with transcarotid with those of other accesses (transfemoral, transaxillary/subclavian, transaortic, and transapical) in patients who underwent TAVI. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included major bleeding, major vascular complications, stroke, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker implantation, and peri-aortic valve insufficiency. We included 22 observational studies with a total of 11,896 patients. Outcomes were reported during hospitalization and at 1-month follow-up. The transcarotid approach had higher mortality at 1 month (3.7% vs 2.6%, p = 0.02) but lower major vascular complications during hospitalization (1.5% vs 3.4%, p = 0.04) than did transfemoral access. The transcarotid approach had lower major vascular complications (2% vs 2.3%, p = 0.04) than did the transaxillary/subclavian but higher major bleeding (5.3% vs 2.6%, p = 0.03). The transaortic approach was associated with higher in-hospital (11.7% vs 1.9%, p = 0.02) and 1-month mortality (14.4% vs 3.9%, p = 0.007) rates than was transcarotid access. The transcarotid approach numerically reduced mortality and the risk of major vascular complications and major bleeding compared with the transapical approach; however, this did not reach statistical significance. The transcarotid approach did not increase the risk of stroke compared with transfemoral or the other alternative accesses. In conclusion, the transcarotid or transaxillary/subclavian approach had associated comparable outcomes that were better than those of the transapical and transaortic approaches. There was no difference in stroke risk between transcarotid access and other accesses.

Network Meta-Analysis Comparing the Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Alternative Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Several studies have pair-wise compared access sites for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) but pooled estimate of overall comparative efficacy and safety outcomes are not well known. We sought to compare short- and long-term outcomes following various alternative access routes for TAVR.

METHODS

Thirty-four studies with a pooled sample size of 32,756 patients were selected by searching PubMed and Cochrane library databases from inception through 11th June 2021 for patients undergoing TAVR via 1 of 6 different access sites: Transfemoral (TF), Transaortic (TAO), Transapical (TA), Transcarotid (TC), Transaxillary/Subclavian (TSA), and Transcaval (TCV). Data were extracted to conduct a frequentist network meta-analysis with a random-effects model using TF access as a reference group.

RESULTS

Compared with TF, both TAO [RR 1.91, 95% CI (1.46-2.50)] and TA access [RR 2.12, 95% CI (1.84-2.46)] were associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality. No significant difference was observed for stroke, myocardial infarction, major bleeding, conversion to open surgery, and major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events at 30 days between different accesses. Major vascular complications were lower in TA [RR 0.43, (95% CI, 0.28-0.67)] and TC [RR 0.51, 95% CI (0.35-0.73)] access compared to TF. The 1-year mortality was higher in TAO [RR of 1.35, (95% CI, 1.01-1.81)] and TA [RR 1.44, (95% CI, 1.14-1.81)] groups.

CONCLUSION

Non-thoracic alternative access site utilization for TAVR implantation (TC, TSA and TCV) is associated with outcomes similar to conventional TF access. Thoracic TAVR access (TAO and TA) translates into increased short and long-term mortality.

Early outcomes of the suprasternal transcatheter aortic valve replacement technique

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now an established treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis. The most utilized approach remains transfemoral. In patients with difficult femoral access a variety of alternate approaches have been used. Recently, suprasternal access has emerged as a viable alternate approach in patients with very complex vascular access. We describe our 30-day outcomes of patients who underwent suprasternal transcatheter aortic valve replacement (suprasternal [SS]-TAVR), which constitutes the largest single-center cohort to date.

METHODS

From May 2016 to September 2021, 658 patients underwent TAVR at our institution. Of which 29 underwent SS-TAVR. We performed a retrospective analysis to evaluate early (30 days) outcomes of this procedure. Main outcomes evaluated included 30-day mortality, stroke and pacemaker rates, length of stay, readmission, and valvular function.

RESULTS

All patients were alive 30 days after the procedure. The median hospital length-of-stay was 2 days. Two patients (6.9%) had a stroke on the contra-lateral side of access. Two patients (6.90%) had significant cardiac arrhythmias requiring pacemaker placement. In 30 days, one patient was readmitted (3.45%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data confirm the SS-TAVR as a feasible and safe alternative with comparable results to established approaches in patients who are unsuitable for femoral artery access and offers clinicians another access site in patients with very complex anatomy.

Transcarotid Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Simple "Flip-n-Flex" Technique

Transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly accepted as a safe and efficacious alternative when transfemoral access is contraindicated. Technical and anatomical considerations unique to transcarotid access warrant several adaptations to the routine TAVR procedure. We describe our approach to overcome these challenges and improve efficiency, including adoption of the flip-n-flex technique that we originally developed for right transaxillary TAVR. This technique has been used at our center since 2019 in both left and right transcarotid TAVR approaches with success to ensure coaxial alignment of the transcatheter heart valve to the aortic root.

A meta-analysis of transcarotid versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Carotid access has shown promise as an excellent delivery route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We aimed to compare outcomes of transcarotid (TC) and transfemoral (TF) TAVR by conducting a search and analysis of the best evidence in the literature to shed light on its safety and effectiveness.

METHODS

The PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane library from inception to July 2020 were searched to identify articles reporting comparative data on TC versus TF approaches for TAVR. Patients' baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were extracted from the articles and pooled for analysis.

RESULTS

Five studies, including a total of 2470 patients, were included in the study with 1859 patients in the TF group and 611 patients in the TC group. The TC group had higher prevalence of peripheral vascular disease, while the patients in the TF group was older. Meta-analysis revealed that there was no significant differences between the two groups with regard to 30-day mortality (p = 0.09), stroke (p = 0.28), new dialysis (p = 0.58), major bleeding (p = 0.69), or pacemaker implantation (p = 0.44). The TF group had a higher incidence of vascular complications (3.9% vs. 2.3%; OR 2.22; 95% CI [1.13, 4.38]; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the TF approach, TC-TAVR is associated with comparable procedural and clinical outcomes. Our analysis found a lower rate of vascular complication in TC access compared with TF access. This supports consideration of such an alternative access when there are concerns over the feasibility of TF access.

Transcarotid Versus Transaxillary/Subclavian Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR): Analysis of Outcomes

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the percutaneous management of valvular heart disease and has evolved to progressively minimalist techniques over the past decade. This review discusses the impact of minimalist TAVR, explores the alternative approaches when transfemoral (TF) TAVR is not possible, and analyzes the current outcomes of transcarotid (TC) versus transaxillary/subclavian (TAx) TAVR, which are the two leading nonfemoral (NF) approaches emerging as the preferred alternatives to TF TAVR.