Comparative survival after transapical, direct aortic, and subclavian transcatheter aortic valve implantation (data from the UK TAVI registry)

Minimum-incision transsubclavian transcatheter aortic valve replacement with balloon-expandable valve for dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Dialysis patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) face increased risk and have poorer outcomes than non-dialysis patients. Moreover, TAVR in dialysis patients using an alternative approach is considered extremely risky and little is known about the outcomes. We routinely perform minimum-incision transsubclavian TAVR (MITS-TAVR), which is contraindicated for transfemoral (TF) TAVR. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of MITS-TAVR compared with those of TF-TAVR in dialysis patients.

METHODS

This single-center, observational study included 79 consecutive dialysis patients who underwent MITS-TAVR (MITS group, n = 22) or TF-TAVR (TF group, n = 57) under regional anesthesia.

RESULTS

The rates of peripheral artery disease (MITS vs. TF, 72.7 % vs. 26.3 %; p < 0.01), shaggy aortas (MITS vs. TF, 63.6 % vs. 5.26 %; p < 0.01), and tortuous aortas (MITS vs. TF, 13.6 % vs. 1.75 %; p = 0.031) were significantly higher in the MITS group. The 30-day mortality was 2.53 % and comparable between the two groups (MITS vs. TF, 4.54 % vs. 1.75 %; p = 0.479). In the MITS group, 14 patients had ipsilateral dialysis fistulas, and three patients had patent in situ ipsilateral internal thoracic artery grafts; however, no vascular complications were observed. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for the two groups showed no significant difference in the survival rate (at 2 years; MITS vs. TF, 77.3 % vs. 68.8 %; p = 0.840) and freedom from cardiovascular mortality (at 2 years; MITS vs. TF, 90.9 % vs. 96.5 %; p = 0.898). The multivariable Cox proportional hazard model also indicated that survival in the MITS group was not significantly different from that in the TF group (hazard ratio 1.48; 95 % confidence interval, 0.77-2.85, p = 0.244). The patency rate of ipsilateral dialysis fistula was 100 % during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The outcome of MITS-TAVR was comparable to that of TF-TAVR in dialysis patients, despite the higher risk of patient characteristics.

Transaxillary versus transfemoral access as default access in TAVI: A propensity matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Transfemoral (TF) access is default in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Transaxillary (TAx) access has been shown to be a safe alternative in case of prohibitive iliofemoral anatomy, but whether TAx as preferred access has similar safety and efficacy as TF access is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between patients treated with self-expanding devices using TF or TAx route as preferred access in TAVI.

METHODS

A single center cohort of 354 patients treated using TAx as preferred access and a multi-center cohort of 5980 patients treated using TF access were compared. Propensity score matching was used to reduce selection bias and potential confounding. After propensity score matching, each group consisted of 322 patients. Clinical outcomes according to VARC-2 were compared using chi-square test.

RESULTS

In 6334 patients undergoing TAVI, mean age was 81.4 ± 7.0 years, 57% was female and median logistic EuroSCORE was 14.7% (IQR 9.5-22.6). In the matched population (age 79.3 ± 7.0, 50% female, logistic EuroSCORE 13.4%, IQR 9.0-21.5), primary outcomes 30-day and one-year all-cause mortality were similar between Tax and TF groups (30 days: 5% versus 6%, p = 0.90; 1 year: 20% versus 16%, p = 0.17). Myocardial infarction was more frequent in patients undergoing Tax TAVI compared with TF (4% versus 1%, p = 0.05), but new permanent pacemakers were less frequently implanted (12% versus 21%, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

TAx as preferred access is feasible and safe with outcomes that are comparable to TF access.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Access Sites: Same Goals, Distinct Aspects, Various Merits and Demerits

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been established as a safe and efficacious treatment for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). Despite being initially developed and indicated for high-surgical-risk patients, it is now offered to low-risk populations based on the results of large randomized controlled trials. The most common access sites in the vast majority of patients undergoing TAVI are the common femoral arteries; however, 10-20% of the patients treated with TAVI require an alternative access route, mainly due to peripheral atherosclerotic disease or complex anatomy. Hence, to achieve successful delivery and implantation of the valve, several arterial approaches have been studied, including transcarotid (TCr), axillary/subclavian (A/Sc), transapical (TAp), transaortic (TAo), suprasternal-brachiocephalic (S-B), and transcaval (TCv). This review aims to concisely summarize the most recent literature data and current guidelines as well as evaluate the various access routes for TAVI, focusing on the indications, the various special patient groups, and the advantages and disadvantages of each technique, as well as their adverse events.

1-Year Outcomes Following Transfemoral Transseptal Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: The HighLife TSMVR Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

A significant number of patients with severe mitral regurgitation (MR) are not suitable for either surgical or transcatheter edge-to-edge repair because of high surgical risk or inappropriate mitral valve anatomy.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the HighLife Trans-Septal Mitral Valve Replacement (TSMVR) system in patients with symptomatic MR and high surgical risk.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized feasibility study evaluated the safety and performance of the HighLife TSMVR system in patients with moderate to severe or severe symptomatic MR during 1-year follow-up. Echocardiographic data were assessed at an independent core laboratory.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients (mean age 75.6 years, 27% women, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 5.5%) with severe MR (90% with secondary MR, median left ventricular ejection fraction 43%) were treated at 13 sites. In 27 of the 30 patients, the HighLife TSMVR system was implanted successfully (technical success rate 90%). Device success at 30 days was 83%. After 1 year, 5 patients (17%) had died. None of the patients who underwent implantation required mitral valve reintervention. All patients who underwent implantation had no or trace (78%) or mild (22%) MR, the mean gradient of the HighLife valve was 5.1 mm Hg, and there were no signs of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (mean gradient 2.0 mm Hg).

CONCLUSIONS

The 1-year results from the HighLife TSMVR feasibility study demonstrate a high technical success rate, excellent valve function, no left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, and no need for mitral valve reintervention. Additional patient outcomes and longer follow-up are needed to confirm these findings. (Expanded Study of the HighLife 28mm Trans-Septal Trans-Catheter Mitral Valve in Patients With Moderate-Severe or Severe Mitral Regurgitation and at High Surgical Risk; NCT04029363).

Simultaneous hybrid off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting and transcatheter aortic valve implantation in elderly patients

Purpose

Optimal strategy for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is unresolved. We evaluated the surgical outcomes of hybrid coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and TAVI in elderly patients.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent simultaneous TAVI and CABG at Wakayama Medical University, Japan. All patients underwent off-pump CABG (OPCAB) including minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS-CABG). In an earlier period, OPCAB + transfemoral TAVI (TF-TAVI) was the only method used, while in a later period, we introduced MICS-CABG and alternative approaches for TAVI.

Results

Twenty-seven patients were enrolled, the average age was 83.6 ± 5.1 years. In the MICS-CABG and TAVI group, average patient age was higher (87.0 ± 3.1 years) than in the earlier group. Thirty-day and in-hospital mortalities were zero. Incomplete revascularization rate was 33.3% and one patient required percutaneous coronary intervention after the operation. Graft patency rate was 100%. In MICS-CABG group, the number of distal anastomoses was smaller (1.29, range 1-2), but the number of days required to re-starting walking and postoperative hospital stay were shorter, and the rate of discharge to home was higher (100%) than in the other groups.

Conclusions

Although 33.3% of patients did not achieve complete revascularization, there was no 30-day or in-hospital mortality. TAVI and hybrid OPCAB, including MICS-CABG, were suggested to be feasible treatment in elderly patients.

Vascular access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The choice of an alternative access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains controversial when transfemoral (TF) access is not feasible.

METHODS

We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of TAVR via various peripheral vascular accesses. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through July 2022 to identify studies that investigated outcomes in patients who underwent TAVR via TF, trans-subclavian (Tsc), transcarotid (TC), or transcaval (Tcav) access. A network meta-analysis was conducted via random-effects model. Outcomes of interest were major or life-threatening bleeding, stroke, major vascular complication, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

No randomized trial was identified. Our analysis included 33 observational studies that enrolled a total of 43,455 patients who underwent TAVR via TF (n = 36,202), Tsc (n = 3869), TC (n = 3066), or Tcav (n = 318) access. The risk of major or life-threatening bleeding was higher via Tsc compared with TF [odds ratio (OR); 95 % confidence interval (CI) =1.51 (1.03-2.23), p = 0.034]. The risk of stroke was higher via Tsc compared with TF and Tcav [OR (95 % CI) =2.00 (1.14-3.52), p = 0.018, OR (95 % CI) =2.43 (1.03-5.74), p = 0.044, respectively]. The risk of major vascular complications was lower via TC compared with Tsc, and Tcav and higher with Tcav compared with TF and Tsc. 30-day mortality was higher via Tsc compared with TF. Tsc was associated with higher risk of major or life-threatening bleeding compared with TF, and higher risk of stroke compared to TF and Tcav. Tcav had the highest risk of major vascular complications.

CONCLUSION

In patients who underwent TF, Tsc, TC, or Tcav TAVR, Tsc had a higher rate of stroke compared to TF and Tcav, and major or life-threatening bleeding compared to TF. The rate of major vascular complications in Tcav was the highest among the four approaches.

Extrathoracic Against Intrathoracic Vascular Accesses for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

Alternative vascular accesses to transfemoral access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) can be divided into intrathoracic (IT)-transapical and transaortic- and extrathoracic (ET)-transcarotid, transsubclavian, and transaxillary. This study aimed to compare the outcomes and safety of IT and ET accesses for TAVR as alternatives to transfemoral access. A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed by searching PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for all studies comparing IT-TAVR with ET-TAVR published until April 2023. Outcomes included in-hospital or 30-day all-cause mortality (ACM), 1-year ACM, postoperative and 30-day complications. A total of 18 studies with 6,800 IT-TAVR patients and 5,032 ET-TAVR patients were included. IT accesses were associated with a significantly higher risk of in-hospital or 30-day ACM (relative risk 1.99, 95% confidence interval 1.67 to 2.36, p <0.001), and 1-year ACM (relative risk 1.31, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.42, p <0.001). IT-TAVR patients presented more often with postoperative life-threatening bleeding, 30-day new-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter, and 30-day acute kidney injury needing renal replacement therapy. The risks of postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation and significant paravalvular leak were lower with IT-TAVR. ET-TAVR patients were more likely to be directly discharged home. There was no statistically significant difference regarding the 30-day risk of stroke. Compared with ET-TAVR, IT-TAVR was associated with higher risks of in-hospital or 30-day ACM, 1-year ACM and higher risks for some critical postprocedural and 30-day complications. Our results suggest that ET-TAVR could be considered as the first-choice alternative approach when transfemoral access is contraindicated.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation by Intercostal Access: Initial Experience with a No-Touch Technique

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is now a well-established therapeutic option in an elderly high-risk patient cohort with aortic valve disease. Although most commonly performed via a transfemoral route, alternative approaches for TAVI are constantly being improved. Instead of the classical mini-sternotomy, it is possible to achieve a transaortic access via a right anterior mini-thoracotomy in the second intercostal space. We describe our experience with this sternum- and rib-sparing technique in comparison to the classical transaortic approach.

METHODS

Our retrospective study includes 173 patients who were treated in our institution between January 2017 and April 2020 with transaortic TAVI via either upper mini-sternotomy or intercostal thoracotomy. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality, and secondary endpoints were defined as major postoperative complications that included admission to the intensive care unit and overall hospital stay, according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients were treated with TAo-TAVI by upper mini-sternotomy, while 91 patients received the intercostal approach. Both groups were comparable in age (mean age: 82 years) and in the proportion of female patients. The intercostal group had a higher rate of peripheral artery disease (41% vs. 22%, p = 0.008) and coronary artery disease (71% vs. 40%, p < 0.001) with a history of percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting, resulting in significantly higher preinterventional risk evaluation (EuroScore II 8% in the intercostal vs. 4% in the TAo group, p = 0.005). Successful device implantation and a reduction of the transvalvular gradient were achieved in all cases with a significantly lower rate of trace to mild paravalvular leakage in the intercostal group (12% vs. 33%, p < 0.001). The intercostal group required significantly fewer blood transfusions (0 vs. 2 units, p = 0.001) and tended to require less reoperation (7% vs. 15%, p = 0.084). Hospital stays (9 vs. 12 d, p = 0.011) were also shorter in the intercostal group. Short- and long-term survival in the follow-up showed comparable results between the two approaches (30-day, 6-month- and 2-year mortality: 7%, 23% and 36% in the intercostal vs. 9%, 26% and 33% in the TAo group) with acute kidney injury (AKI) and reintubation being independent risk factors for mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Transaortic TAVI via an intercostal access offers a safe and effective treatment of aortic valve stenosis.

Comparison of Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Requiring Peripheral Vascular Intervention or Alternative Access

Background Peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) is occasionally required to facilitate delivery system insertion or to treat vascular complications during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR). However, the impact of PVI on outcomes is not well understood. Therefore, we aimed to compare outcomes between TF-TAVR with versus without PVI and between TF-TAVR with PVI versus non-TF-TAVR. Methods and Results We retrospectively reviewed 2386 patients who underwent TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve at a single institution from 2016 to 2020. The primary outcomes were death and major adverse cardiac/cerebrovascular event (MACCE), defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Of 2246 TF-TAVR recipients, 136 (6.1%) required PVI (89% bailout treatment). During follow-up (median 23.0 months), there were no significant differences between TF-TAVR with and without PVI in death (15.4% versus 20.7%; adjusted HR [aHR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.58-1.58]) or MACCE (16.9% versus 23.0%; aHR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.52-1.36]). However, compared with non-TF-TAVR (n=140), TF-TAVR with PVI carried significantly lower rates of death (15.4% versus 40.7%; aHR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.24-0.75]) and MACCE (16.9% versus 45.0%; aHR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.23-0.68]). Landmark analyses demonstrated lower outcome rates following TF-TAVR with PVI than non-TF-TAVR both within 60 days (death 0.7% versus 5.7%, P=0.019; MACCE 0.7% versus 9.3%; P=0.001) and thereafter (death 15.0% versus 38.9%, P=0.014; MACCE 16.5% versus 41.3%, P=0.013). Conclusions The need for PVI during TF-TAVR is not uncommon, mainly due to the bailout treatment for vascular complications. PVI is not associated with worse outcomes in TF-TAVR recipients. Even when PVI is required, TF-TAVR is associated with better short- and intermediate-term outcomes than non-TF-TAVR.

Minimum-incision trans-subclavian transcatheter aortic valve replacement with regional anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Minimum-incision trans-subclavian transcatheter aortic valve replacement (MITS-TAVR) is usually performed in patients who are contraindicated for transfemoral TAVR, under regional anesthesia (RA). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of MITS-TAVR under RA compared to MITS-TAVR under general anesthesia (GA).

METHODS

This single-center observational study included 44 consecutive patients who underwent MITS-TAVR under RA (RA group, n = 19) and GA (GA group, n = 25). RA was achieved using an ultrasound-guided nerve block.

RESULTS

The rates of respiratory disease (RA vs. GA, 36.8 % vs. 4.0 %; p < 0.01) and dialysis (79.0 % vs. 0 %; p < 0.01) were significantly higher in the RA group. STS score was significantly higher in the RA group (RA vs. GA, 10.8 ± 1.06 % vs. 7.87 ± 0.93 %; p < 0.01). Both groups had a 100 % procedural success rate. The two groups showed comparable operation room stay times (RA vs. GA, 160 ± 6.96 min vs. 148 ± 5.90 min; p = 0.058). The mean rate of change in blood pressure, used as an index of hemodynamic stability, was significantly lower in the RA group (RA vs. GA, 19.0 ± 3.4 % vs. 35.5 ± 3.0 %; p < 0.01). No in-hospital deaths occurred in either group. One case of minor dissection occurred in the GA group (RA vs.GA, 0 % vs. 4.0 %, p = 0.378). The intensive care unit stay (RA vs. GA, 0.21 ± 0.11 days vs. 1.24 ± 0.10 days; p < 0.01) and hospital stay (RA vs. GA, 7.00 ± 1.73 days vs. 12.2 ± 1.44 days; p < 0.01) were significantly shorter in the RA group.

CONCLUSIONS

MITS-TAVR under RA is safe and effective and might be a promising alternative approach. It could ensure intraoperative hemodynamic stability and shorten intensive care unit and hospital stays.

Comparison of Transfemoral versus Transsubclavian/Transaxillary access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Femoral access is the gold standard for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Safe alternative access, that represents about 15 % of TAVR cases, remains important for patients without adequate transfemoral access. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing transfemoral (TF) access versus transsubclavian or transaxillary (TSc/TAx) access in patients undergoing TAVR. We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL Register, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception through May 24, 2022) for studies comparing (TF) to (TSc/TAx) access for TAVR. A total of 21 studies with 75,995 unique patients who underwent TAVR (73,203 transfemoral and 2,792 TSc/TAx) were included in the analysis. There was no difference in the risk of in-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality between the two groups (RR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.36–1.13, P = 0.12) and (RR 0.95, 95 % CI 0.64–1.41, P = 0.81), while 1-year mortality was significantly lower in the TF TAVR group (RR 0.79, 95 % CI 0.67–0.93, P = 0.005). No significant differences in major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95 % CI 0.65–1.03, P = 0.09), major vascular complications (RR 1.14, 95 % CI 0.75–1.72, P = 0.53), and stroke (RR 0.66, 95 % CI 0.42–1.02, P = 0.06) were observed. In patients undergoing TAVR, TF access is associated with significantly lower 1-year mortality compared to TSc/TAx access without differences in major bleeding, major vascular complications and stroke. While TF is the preferred approach for TAVR, TSc/TAx is a safe alternative approach. Future studies should confirm these findings, preferably in a randomized setting.

Mitral Regurgitation in the High-Risk Patient: Integrating an Expanding Armamentarium of Transcatheter Devices Into the Treatment Algorithm

Over the last decade, multiple transcatheter mitral valve repair and replacement strategies have emerged, yet there is only 1 US Food and Drug Administration approved device, the MitraClip (Abbott Vascular, Inc., Santa Clara, CA). Current guidelines support the use of the MitraClip in high or prohibitive surgical risk patients, but there are many patients that are not anatomically suited for the device. This review article discusses the approach to degenerative and functional mitral regurgitation in the high-prohibitive risk patient, how to choose transcatheter treatment options (both approved and investigational), and potential management for therapy failure.

Advances in technology and techniques for transcatheter aortic valve replacement with concomitant peripheral arterial disease

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a prevalent disease affecting 3.7% of the adult population aged 65 or above. In the past, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was the only definitive therapy available for the treatment of severe AS. Owing to the invasive nature of open-heart surgery, patients with advanced age and frailty could not benefit from SAVR. The advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the past decade has offered an alternative treatment option for patients with severe AS, particularly those who are deemed to have high surgical risks. Nevertheless, a large proportion of patients also have concomitant peripheral arterial disease (PAD), which increases the risk of peri-procedural vascular complication, and precludes the possibility of transfemoral TAVR owing to inadequate luminal size for delivery system deployment. In this review, the prevalence and outcome of TAVR patients with PAD will be discussed. Furthermore, novel technologies and techniques that enable TAVR to be safely performed using transfemoral or alternative access in patients with severe PAD will be reviewed.

Comparison of outcomes of trans-subclavian versus trans-apical approaches in transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Background

Many patients are unsuitable for conventional femoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) but there is limited evidence as to which alternative approach has the best outcomes. We compared clinical outcomes in patients undergoing trans-subclavian (TS) or trans-apical (TA) TAVI.

Methods

This was a national retrospective observational study of patients undergoing surgical TAVI in Scotland between January 2013 and March 2020. The pre-operative patient characteristics, intraoperative details and post-operative outcomes were compared between TS and TA cohorts using data from the National Institute of Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) registry.

Results

Among 1055 patients who underwent TAVI, TS or TA access was used in 50 (4.7%) and 90 (8.5%) patients respectively. Self-expanding Medtronic Evolut R valves were used in 84% of TS procedures, while balloon-expandable Edwards SAPIEN valves were used in all TA procedures. The TS group had a lower mean logistic EuroSCORE than the TA group (27.31 ± 19.44% vs 34.92 ± 19.61% p = 0.029). The TS approach was associated with a higher incidence of moderate postprocedural aortic regurgitation (12.5% vs 2.4%, p = 0.025). There was no significant difference in 30-day, 1-year or overall all-cause mortality.

Conclusions

Both trans-subclavian and trans-apical access are viable approaches for patients requiring non-transfemoral TAVI. Differences in peri-procedural indices reflect the disparate patient populations and factors governing prosthesis choice, and short- and long-term mortality was similar.

Transaxillary Versus Transaortic Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in the Treatment of Aortic Stenosis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a technique that can be performed through multiple approaches, and the benefits of one approach over another are still being evaluated to make sure patients receive the best possible care. Our meta-analysis aims to compare clinical and procedural outcomes of the transaxillary (TAx) and transaortic (TAo) approaches to validate the more optimal procedure.

The systematic literature search was done via PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central databases from inception to December 2021, to identify articles reporting data on both TAx TAVR and TAo TAVR. In addition, we checked ClinicalTrials.gov for more published or unpublished trials. Baseline patient characteristics, procedure results, and clinical results were extracted from the article and pooled for analysis. A quantitative meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.3 (Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). The outcomes extracted included blood transfusion, conversion to sternotomy, tamponade, contrast amount, procedure time, bleeding incidents (minor, major, or life-threatening), length of stay (LOS), vascular complications (minor or major), acute kidney injury (AKI), paravalvular leak (PVL), permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, 30-day mortality, one-year mortality, 30-day stroke, and device success.

The final analysis included 11 articles, consisting of 10 observational studies and a pivotal trial. Cumulative results revealed that the TAo approach had a significantly lower incidence of vascular complications (RR = 2.30; 95% CI = 1.22 to 4.35), and the need for implantation of a permanent pacemaker (RR = 1.82; 95% CI = 1.30 to 2.54) along with a lower amount of contrast (mean difference (MD) = 27.40; 95% CI = 3.73 to 51.08) needed to be used. The TAx group was associated with a significantly lower 30-day mortality (RR = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.31 to 0.69), AKI (RR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.67), and length of hospital stay (MD = −1.95; 95% CI = −2.51 to −1.38). No significant difference was observed between the outcomes of 30-day stroke (RR = 1.38; 95% CI = 0.81 to 2.33), PVL (RR = 1.05; 95% CI = 0.50 to 2.18), tamponade (RR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.12 to 4.03), conversion to sternotomy (RR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.06 to 4.30), device success (RR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.07), the incidence of bleeding (RR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.51 to 1.10), and procedure time (MD = 4.44; 95% CI = −96.30 to 105.17).

Both the procedures were associated with their benefits and risks. Although most of the outcomes favored TAx transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), it is too early to say if it would be better than TAo TAVI. To authenticate the findings concluded in this meta-analysis and further improve our understanding of the efficacy, safety, and risk profile between TAx and TAo approaches for TAVI, large sample randomized clinical trials are required on a wide scale.

Minireview: Transaortic Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Is There Still an Indication?

Transaortic (TAo) transcatheter aortic valve implantation has become a valid alternative access route in patients with unsuitable femoral arteries. The current literature does not allow to clearly favor one of the alternative access routes. Every approach has its specific advantages. Transaortic (TAo) access is of particular importance in the case of calcifications of the supra-aortic branches and the aortic arch, as under these circumstances other alternative access routes, such as transaxillary or transcarotid, are not feasible. The purpose of this minireview is to give an overview and update on TAo transcatheter aortic valve implantation focusing on indication, technical aspects, and recent clinical data.

Surgical transcatheter valve implantation: The more pathways, the better

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is rapidly spreading across the world with the endorsement of the cardiological community and the supporting results of randomized controlled trials. However, TAVI-related complications like aortic dissection, aortic valvular rupture, or left ventricle perforation are still potentially catastrophic.

The Transaxillary Approach via Prosthetic Conduit for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the New-Generation Balloon-Expandable Valves in Patients With Severe Peripheral Artery Disease

Background: The left subclavian artery (LSA) is an infrequently used alternative access route for patients with severe peripheral artery disease (PAD) in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We report a new endovascular approach for TAVR combining an axillary prosthetic conduit-based access technique with new-generation balloon-expandable TAVR prostheses.

Methods and Results: Between January 2020 and December 2020, 251 patients underwent TAVR at the West German Heart and Vascular Center. Of these, 10 patients (3.9%) were deemed to be treated optimally by direct surgical exposure of the left or right axillary artery via a surgically adapted prosthetic conduit. All procedures were performed under general anesthesia. One procedural stroke occurred due to severe calcification of the aortic arch. No specific complications of the subclavian access site (vessel rupture, vertebral, or internal mammary ischemia) were reported. Two minor bleedings from the access site could be treated conservatively. No surgical revision was necessary.

Conclusion: The axillary prosthetic conduit-based access technique using new-generation balloon-expandable valves allows safe and successful TAVR in a subgroup of patients with a high risk of procedural complications due to severe peripheral vascular disease. Considering the increasing number of patients referred for TAVR, this approach could represent an alternative for patients with limited access sites.

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.

Achieving Hemostasis Posttranscatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in a Patient with Aortobifemoral Bypass Graft Using Perclose Device: A Novel Technique

The presence of aortobifemoral bypass graft can complicate vascular access during percutaneous intervention. Choosing an access route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in this patient population can be challenging. Access options are further limited by the presence of coexisting vascular comorbidities such as extensive peripheral artery diseases in these patients. Adequate preoperative planning to determine the suitability of different access sites is, therefore, very crucial. Our case report shows that the use of Perclose can be a viable option for achieving hemostasis after a direct puncture of an aortobifemoral bypass graft during transfemoral TAVR.

Thirty-Day Outcomes Following Transfemoral Transseptal Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: Intrepid TMVR Early Feasibility Study Results

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) with transfemoral access in patients at prohibitive or high surgical risk.

BACKGROUND

Prohibitive surgical risk may preclude MVR surgery in some patients. The investigational Intrepid TMVR system (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) has previously been evaluated using transapical access for delivery of a self-expanding bioprosthetic valve.

METHODS

This prospective, multi-center, non-randomized early feasibility study (EFS) evaluated safety and performance of the Intrepid valve using transfemoral/transseptal access in patients with moderate-severe/severe, symptomatic mitral regurgitation (MR) at high surgical risk. Candidacy was determined by heart teams with approval by a central screening committee. Echocardiographic data were evaluated by an independent core laboratory. Clinical events were adjudicated by a clinical events committee.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients were enrolled at 6 sites from Feb 2020-May 2021. Median age was 80 years and STS-PROM was 4.7%; 87% were male and 53% had prior sternotomy. Fourteen implants were successful. One patient converted to surgery during the index procedure. Patients stayed a median 5 days post-procedure. There were 6 (40%) access site bleeds and 11 (73%) iatrogenic ASD closures. At 30 days, there were no deaths, strokes, or reinterventions. All implanted patients had trace/no valvar or paravalvar MR and mean gradient was 4.7±1.8 mmHg.

CONCLUSIONS

Thirty-day results from the Intrepid transfemoral TMVR EFS demonstrate excellent valve function and no mortality or stroke. Additional patients and longer follow-up are needed to confirm these findings.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: All Transfemoral? Update on Peripheral Vascular Access and Closure

Transfemoral access remains the most widely used peripheral vascular approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Despite technical improvement and reduction in delivery sheath diameters of all TAVI platforms, 10-20% of patients remain not eligible to transfemoral TAVI due to peripheral artery disease. In this review, we aim at presenting an update of recent data concerning transfemoral access and percutaneous closure devices. Moreover, we will review peripheral non-transfemoral alternative as well as caval-aortic accesses and discuss the important features to assess with pre-procedural imaging modalities before TAVI.

The JenaValve pericardial transcatheter aortic valve replacement system to treat aortic valve disease

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is a valuable alternative technique to surgery and the spectrum of therapy continues to evolve. The JenaValve Pericaridal transcatheter aortic valve replacement System allows prosthesis fixation in a native, noncalcified aortic annulus with a unique paper clip-like anchorage mechanism. The low rate of paravalvular leakage and permanent pacemaker implantation emphasizes the further widespread use of the JenaValve - despite the limited data available. In May 2021, a CE mark for the transfemoral implantation in both aortic regurgitation and aortic stenosis was granted. However, no data have been published so far. The ongoing ALIGN trials are expected to provide the pending long-term data.

Alternative Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Comprehensive Review

Transfemoral is the most widely used access to perform transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, alternative access is needed in up to 21% of patients with TAVR because of a myriad of factors. The authors provide a comprehensive review on alternative access for TAVR, discussing the relevant data and providing the pros and cons of each access route.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement via a transsubclavian approach in a patient with severe aortic stenosis who had previously undergone kidney transplantation: A case report

RATIONALE

Although the transfemoral approach is the gold standard for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), it is not feasible in a considerable number of patients. We report a case of successful transsubclavian TAVR (TS-TAVR) in a patient with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who was ineligible for transfemoral TAVR because she was a kidney transplant recipient.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 72-year-old Korean woman, who had previously undergone kidney transplantation in the right iliac fossa for end-stage kidney disease, was admitted to our center with dyspnea. Upon auscultation, grade IV systolic murmurs were detected in both upper sternal borders and the left lower sternal border, suggestive of valvular heart disease.

DIAGNOSIS

Two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography revealed heavy calcification of the aortic valve with a high peak velocity (4.54 m/s) and mean pressure gradient (48.49 mm Hg), indicative of severe AS.

INTERVENTIONS

TS-TAVR was performed by a heart team comprised of interventional cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, and anesthesiologists. A self-expandable valve prosthesis (CoreValveTM Evolut RTM, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN) was successfully deployed via the left subclavian artery.

OUTCOMES

Post-TAVR 2-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography demonstrated a well-functioning valve with mild paravalvular leakage. The peak velocity had declined from 4.54 m/s to 2.22 to 2.24 m/s, and the mean pressure gradient had declined from 48.49 to 8.57-9.61 mmHg. The patient was discharged successfully and uneventfully.

LESSONS

Because kidney transplant recipients with severe AS are considered poor candidates for transfemoral TAVR, TS-TAVR is a suitable alternative to consider.

Renal protection of transaxillary/subclavian accesses for transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with impossible femoral access

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common postoperative complication after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). In patients with ineligible femoral access, transaxillary/subclavian (TAx/TSc) might be competitive alternative access. With nine cohort studies and 4995 patients, we found that TAx/TSc access was associated with decreased incidences of AKI (Relative risk [RR]: 0.573, 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.456-0.718, p < .001) and stage 3 AKI (RR 0.460, 95%CI 0.318-0.665, p < .001) by comparison with intrathoracic approaches. Our findings suggest that TAx/TSc is associated with a reduced AKI risk after TAVR in patients with impossible femoral access.

Transcatheter Mitral Valve Implantation: Current Status and Future Perspectives

Mitral transcatheter therapies represent the treatment of choice for all patients deemed unsuitable for cardiac surgery. So far, the largest clinical experience has been limited to percutaneous repair techniques. However, given the complexity and heterogeneity of mitral valve anatomy and pathology, transcatheter mitral valve implantation will widen the mitral valve therapies horizon, toward a patient-tailored approach. Current data about transcatheter mitral valve implantation is still limited and, although some data are promising, there are still some issues to be addressed. This review provides a comprehensive insight into the available devices and describes potential advantages and limitations of transcatheter mitral valve implantation.

Clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in South America: A centre-level systematic review and meta-analysis of observational data

OBJECTIVES

To estimate in-hospital and 30-day outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in South America through a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational data.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched for papers published in peer-reviewed medical journals and for abstracts presented in medical conferences of the region from 1 September 2008, through 29 June 2020, using predefined criteria. We included single-centre studies on TAVR populations with ≥10 patients from South America reporting any in-hospital or 30-day clinical outcome.

RESULTS

Fifty-five cohorts from seven countries, pooling 3001 patients, were included in a random-effects meta-analysis. Self-expandable prostheses were the most frequently implanted. Pooled estimate of procedure success by VARC2 criteria was 90.0% (95%CI 81.8%-94.7%; I² 75.0%). The pooled estimate rates of the outcomes were as follow: post-procedure moderate or severe aortic regurgitation, 9.7% (95%CI 6.0%-15.4%; I² 65.4%), in-hospital cardiac tamponade, 4.0% (95%CI 2.5%-6.6%; I² 0%), in-hospital stroke, 4.1% (95%CI 2.9%-5.7%; I² 0%), in-hospital major vascular complication, 7.8% (95%CI 5.2%-11.5%; I² 22.3%), in-hospital permanent pacemaker implantation, 19.4% (95%CI 15.9%-23.4%; I² 53.8%), in-hospital mortality, 8.0% (95%CI 6.7%-9.6%; I² 0%), and 30-day mortality, 9.7% (95%CI 7.9%-11.8%; I² 26.4%).

CONCLUSION

As compared with published international registries, the overall results of TAVR in South America seemed underrated. Significant heterogeneity was observed in procedural success, pacemaker requirement, and post-procedure moderate or severe aortic regurgitation. This study provides a real-life framework for the analysis of the performance of this technology in the region, intended to be a starting point for quality improvement.

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.

Current Trends in TAVI Access

The optimal approach for Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the transfemoral access but alternative TAVI approaches offer the possibility of valve replacement in patients who are not eligible to the transfemoral route. This review paper intends to compare the current available alternative approaches for TAVI in terms of their safety and efficacy, based on the current literature. The transapical, transaortic, transsubclavian, transcarotid, transcaval and suprasternal approaches have been analyzed. The choice of the alternative approach dependents on local Heart Team expertise, patient specific characteristics, access specific characteristics and the need or not for general anesthesia. More studies are needed to investigate the impact of each individual approach on long-term outcomes.

The effect of transcatheter aortic valve implantation approaches on mortality

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the effect of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) approaches on mortality and identify effect modifiers and predictors for mortality.

BACKGROUND

Alternative access routes to transfemoral (TF) TAVI include the surgical intra-thoracic direct-aortic (DA) and transapical (TA) approach. TA TAVI has been associated with a higher mortality rate. We hypothesized that this is related to effect modifiers, in particular the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

METHODS

This multicentre study derived its data from prospective registries. To adjust for confounders, we used propensity-score based, stabilized inverse probability weighted Cox regression models.

RESULTS

In total, 5,910 patients underwent TAVI via TF (N = 4,072), DA (N = 524), and TA (N = 1,314) access. Compared to TF, 30-day mortality was increased among DA (HR 1.87, 95%CI 1.26-2.78, p = .002) and TA (HR 3.34, 95%CI 2.28-4.89, p < .001) cases. Compared to TF, 5-year mortality was increased among TA cases (HR 1.50, 95%CI 1.24-1.83, p < .001). None of the variables showed a significant interaction between the approaches and mortality. An impaired LVEF (≤35%) increased mortality in all approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical intra-thoracic TA and DA TAVI are both associated with a higher 30-day mortality than TF TAVI. TA TAVI is associated with a higher 5-year mortality than TF TAVI. The DA approach may therefore have some advantages over the TA approach when TF access is not feasible.

Comparison of outcomes following transfemoral versus trans-subclavian approach for transcatheter aortic valve Implantation: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The subclavian artery is an alternative access route for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), with a potential advantage in patients unsuitable for traditional access routes such as the femoral artery. This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of the trans-subclavian (TSc) compared to the trans-femoral (TF) approach.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted on two online databases: Embase and Medline. The initial search returned 508 titles. Nine observational studies were included: n = 2938 patients (2382 TF and 556 TSc).

RESULTS

Both TSc and TF groups were comparable for: 30-day mortality (Odds ratio, OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 - 1.16, p = 0.195); in-hospital stroke (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60-1.85, p = 0.859); myocardial infarction (OR 1.97, 95% CI 0.74-5.23, p = 0.176); paravalvular leaks (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.76-1.90, p = 0.439); rates of postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation (OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.92-2.41, p = 0.105); in-hospital bleeding and meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference between access points (OR 3.44, 95% CI 0.35-34.22, p = 0.292). Procedural time was found to be longer in the TSc group (SMD 1.02; 95% CI 0.815-1.219, p < 0.001). Major vascular complications were significantly higher in the TF group (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.94, p = 0.029). Meta regression found no influence of the covariates on the outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Subclavian access is both a safe and feasible alternative access route for TAVI with lower risks of major vascular complications. This study supports the use of subclavian access as a viable alternative in patient groups where transfemoral TAVI is contraindicated.

Femoral Versus Nonfemoral Subclavian/Carotid Arterial Access Route for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Some concerns remain regarding the safety of transcarotid and transsubclavian approaches for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. We aimed to compare the risk of 30‐day complications and death in transcarotid/transsubclavian versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement recipients.

Methods and Results

Data from 20 studies, including 79 426 patients (16 studies) and 3992 patients (4 studies) for the evaluation of the unadjusted and adjusted impact of the arterial approach were sourced, respectively. The use of a transcarotid/transsubclavian approach was associated with an increased risk of stroke when using unadjusted data (risk ratio [RR], 2.28; 95% CI, 1.90–2.72) as well as adjusted data (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.05–2.22). The pooled results deriving from unadjusted data showed an increased risk of 30‐day death (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.22–1.74) and bleeding (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.18–1.97) in patients receiving transcatheter aortic valve replacement through a transcarotid/transsubclavian access (compared with the transfemoral group), but the associations between the arterial access and death (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.89–1.69), bleeding (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.68–1.61) were no longer significant when using adjusted data. No significant effect of the arterial access on vascular complication was observed in unadjusted (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66–1.06) and adjusted (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.53–1.17) analyses.

Conclusions

Transcarotid and transsubclavian approaches for transcatheter aortic valve replacement were associated with an increased risk of stroke compared with the transfemoral approach. However, these nonfemoral arterial alternative accesses were not associated with an increased risk of 30‐day death, bleeding, or vascular complication when taking into account the confounding factors.

The best way to transcatheter aortic valve implantation: From standard to new approaches

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a safe and beneficial treatment for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis at high and intermediate surgical risk. The safety of the procedure continues to improve thanks to more refined procedural approaches and devices but, also and above all, to the accrual of the procedural knowledge and expertise by the operators. The diversification of the approaches and the possibility to tailor the treatment on the individual needs and anatomical features of the patients allows a rapid learning curve in the management of even complications. Indeed, there are several approaches with which TAVI can be carried out: transfemoral arterial, subclavian, transcarotid, transaortic, transaxillary, transapical, and through right anterior thoracotomy. Although transfemoral venous TAVI is less common, it has already have been carried out using caval-aortic punctures. This field is rapidly evolving, and it will be of paramount importance for interventional cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons to keep up to date with further developments. This review intends to give an in-depth and update overview of both conventional and innovative TAVI approaches, with the scope to highlight the relevant advantages, major disadvantages, safety aspects and techniques.

A meta-analysis comparing transaxillary and transaortic transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

The alternative access route of choice for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains to be elucidated due to lack of evidences. We performed a meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of two common alternative access routes, transaxillary (TAx) and transaortic (TAo) approaches.

METHODS

The PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane library from inception to December 2018 were searched to identify the articles reporting data on both TAx-TAVR and TAo-TAVR. Patients' baseline characteristics, procedural outcomes, and clinical outcomes were extracted from the articles and pooled for analysis.

RESULTS

Four studies, a total of 750 (374 TAo and 376 TAx) patients were included in the study. The two groups were similar in patients' baseline characteristics, although the TAx group comprised few female patients. The two groups differ in outcomes including 30-day mortality, rates of pacemaker implant and acute kidney injury, and length of hospital stay. There were no differences between the two groups with regard to device success, paravalvular leak, stroke, vascular complications, and 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the TAo approach, the TAx approach is associated with favorable short-term mortality, lower incidence of acute kidney injury, and shorter length of hospital stay, but increased pacemaker requirement. TAx could be considered over TAo as the preferred alternative access for TAVR.

UK TAVI registry

The UK Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) registry has collected data about every TAVI procedure performed in the UK. The latest data are from 2016 when 3250 procedures (49.5 pmp) were performed. There has been no change in the mean age of patients but there has been a shift to lower risk with fall in mean Logistic Euroscore since 2012. The switch from general anaesthetic to conscious sedation has been rapid, and propensity-adjusted analysis has not shown a difference in outcomes. In-hospital mortality has fallen to 1.8% in 2016, and relative survival analysis has shown outcome the same as the matched general population to 3 years. The UK TAVI registry has provided valuable benchmarks, and a risk adjustment model that includes frailty measures has been successfully developed and is available online.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation via surgical subclavian versus direct aortic access: A United Kingdom analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical subclavian (SC) and direct aortic (DA) access are established alternatives to the default transfemoral route for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We sought to find differences in survival and procedure-related outcomes after SC- versus DA-TAVI.

METHODS

We performed an observational cohort analysis of cases prospectively uploaded to the UK TAVI registry. To ensure the most contemporaneous comparison, the analysis focused on SC and DA procedures performed from 2013 to 2015.

RESULTS

Between January 2013 and July 2015, 82 (37%) SC and 142 (63%) DA cases were performed that had validated 1-year life status. Multivariable regression analysis showed procedure duration was longer for SC cases (SC 193.5 ± 65.8 vs. DA 138.4 ± 57.7 min; p < .01) but length of hospital stay was shorter (SC 8.6 ± 9.5 vs. DA 11.9 ± 10.8 days; p = .03). Acute kidney injury was observed less frequently after SC cases (odds ratio [OR] 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI 0.12-0.96]; p = .042) but vascular access site-related complications were more common (OR 9.75 [3.07-30.93]; p < .01). Procedure-related bleeding (OR 0.54 [0.24-1.25]; p = .15) and in-hospital stroke rate (SC 3.7% vs. DA 2.1%; p = .67) were similar. There were no significant differences in in-hospital (SC 2.4% vs. DA 4.9%; p = .49), 30-day (SC 2.4% vs. DA 4.2%; p = .71) or 1-year (SC 14.5% vs. DA 21.9%; p = .344) mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical subclavian and direct aortic approaches can offer favourable outcomes in appropriate patients. Neither access modality conferred a survival advantage but there were significant differences in procedural metrics that might influence which approach is selected.

Transaxillary TAVR Leads to Shorter Ventilator Duration and Hospital Length of Stay Compared to Transapical TAVR

There is an increasing need for alternative access in patients with prohibitive surgical risk who have unsuitable anatomy for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Data on differences in periprocedural outcomes via alternative access sites are scarce. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent Transaxillary (TAX) or Transapical (TAP) TAVR at our center from 2012 to 2019. All data was summarized and displayed as mean ± SD for continuous variables and number of patients in each group. A propensity score was created for each patient in the dataset to determine the probability of axillary vs apical access. We adjusted for propensity score using multivariate logistic regression. A total of 102 patients underwent TAVR via alternative access: 28 patients (27%) via TAX and 74 patients (73%) via transapical (TAP) access. The average time to extubation in the TAX group was 5.3 ± 3.5 hours vs 9.1 ± 8.8 hours in the TAP patients (P = 0.03). None of the TAX patients required reintubation compared to 23% of TAP TAVR (P = 0.003). The average hospital length of stay for TAX was 2.4 ± 2.0 days compared to 6.9 ± 3.3 days (P < 0.0001) for TAP. TAX TAVR patients had significantly lower re-intubation rates, shorter time to extubation and in-hospital length of stay, but higher pacemaker implantation rates. TAX TAVR had improved periprocedural outcomes compared to TAP TAVR and remains the preferred TAVR alternative access.

Direct aortic route versus transaxillary route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The transfemoral route is contraindicated in nearly 10% of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) candidates because of unsuitable iliofemoral vessels. Transaxillary (TAx) and direct aortic (DAo) routes are the principal nonfemoral TAVR routes; however, few studies have compared their outcomes.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the rates of mortality, stroke, and other adverse events of TAx and DAo TAVR. The study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42017069788). We searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for studies reporting the outcomes of DAo or TAx TAVR in at least 10 patients. Studies that did not use the Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions were excluded. We included studies that did not directly compare the two approaches and then pooled rates of events from the included studies for comparison.

Results

In total, 31 studies were included in the quantitative meta-analysis, with 2,883 and 2,172 patients in the DAo and TAx TAVR groups, respectively. Compared with TAx TAVR, DAo TAVR had a lower Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) score, shorter fluoroscopic time, and less contrast volume use. The 30-day mortality rates were significantly higher in the DAo TAVR group (9.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [8.4–10.9]) than in the TAx TAVR group (5.7%, 95% CI = [4.8–6.8]; P for heterogeneity <0.001). DAo TAVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of stroke in the overall study population (2.6% vs. 5.8%, P for heterogeneity <0.001) and in the subgroup of studies with a mean STS score of ≥8 (1.6% vs. 6.2%, P for heterogeneity = 0.005). DAo TAVR was also associated with lower risks of permanent pacemaker implantation (12.3% vs. 20.1%, P for heterogeneity = 0.009) and valve malposition (2.0% vs. 10.2%, P for heterogeneity = 0.023) than was TAx TAVR.

Conclusions

DAo TAVR increased 30-day mortality rate compared with TAx TAVR; by contrast, TAx TAVR increased postoperative stroke, permanent pacemaker implantation, and valve malposition risks compared with DAo TAVR.

Contemporary review of severe aortic stenosis

Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common form of valvular heart disease in the developed world, with a rising prevalence due to an ageing Australian population. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) offers a less invasive option for the treatment of severe AS, with evidence supporting TAVI compared with medical therapy in inoperable patients and superior with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in high-risk patients. Equal outcomes have been observed in all-comer intermediate-risk populations. The Heart Team utilises a shared decision-making approach between physicians and surgeons in risk-stratifying patients and reduces the intrinsic bias that may occur if decisions are made in isolation. Geriatric assessment is useful for identifying preoperative frailty, a major risk factor for death post-aortic valve intervention. In severe AS, a decision can be made collaboratively to pursue TAVI, SAVR, a Ross Procedure or conservative management. The learning curve associated with TAVI has improved markedly, with overall complication rates decreasing around the world. Contemporary changes in practice, such as conscious sedation without general anaesthesia, expedited recovery and early discharge, will likely improve cost-effectiveness. In 2018, TAVI is a well-established procedure in Australia that has revolutionised the management of severe AS. In the future, with an expanding elderly population, the number of patients to benefit from transcatheter therapies for severe AS is hypothesised to increase 4-10-fold. Heart Team assessment is crucial in patients with severe AS to direct appropriate management.