Comparison of the Transarterial and Transthoracic Approaches in Nontransfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcarotid versus trans-axillary/subclavian transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR): A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) is the treatment of choice in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Transcarotid (TCa) or Trans-axillary/subclavian (TAx/Sc) are safer and less invasive non-femoral approaches, where transfemoral access is difficult or impossible to obtain.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed based on PRISMA guidelines after registering in PROSPERO (CRD42023482842). This meta-analysis was performed to compare the safety of the transcarotid and trans-axillary/subclavian approach for TAVR including studies from inception to October 2023.

RESULTS

Seven studies with a total of 6227 patients were included in the analysis (TCa: 2566; TAx/Sc: 3661). Transcarotid TAVR approach had a favorable trend for composite of stroke and all-cause mortality (OR 0.79, CI 0.60-1.04), all-cause mortality, stroke, major vascular complication, and new requirement of permanent pacemaker though those were statistically insignificant. On sub-analysis of the results of the studies based on the territory (USA vs French), composite outcome of all cause mortality, stroke and major bleeding (OR 0.54, CI 0.54-0.81), composite of stroke and all cause mortality (OR 0.64, CI 0.50-0.81), and stroke/TIA (OR 0.53, CI 0.39-0.73) showed lower odds of occurrence among patient managed with TCa approach in the American cohort.

CONCLUSION

Overall, transcarotid approach had favorable though statistically insignificant odds for composite (stroke and all-cause mortality) and individual outcomes (stroke, all-cause mortality, etc.). There are significant variations in observed outcomes based on study's geographic location. Large prospective randomized clinical trials comparing the two approaches with representative samples are necessary to guide the clinicians in choosing among these approaches.

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.

Vascular management during transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), as an alternative to open heart surgery, has been established as the standard therapy for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. Vascular access management, the first step in a TAVR procedure, should be managed properly. Moreover, the transfemoral and alternatives such as the transaxillary/subclavian, transcarotid, transapical, and transcaval approaches are considered access routes during TAVR. More than 90% of cases can be treated via the transfemoral approach in the current TAVR era, whereas other approaches should be considered in patients in whom the transfemoral approach is not suitable. Vascular complications regardless of access route differences are a specific issue of TAVR caused by the use of large sheaths. With the increased number of TAVR cases, we must manage vascular complications and decrease the morbidity and mortality rates associated with TAVR procedures. Thus, this study aimed to review the vascular complications during TAVR and summarize their prognosis, prevention, and adequate management.

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.

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.

Transapical-transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients without transvascular options: Modified transapical approach

OBJECTIVES

Outcomes in patients with iliofemoral and concomitant iliofemoral-remote arteriopathies who cannot undergo transfemoral or other alternative transvascular approaches have not been studied so far. This study aimed to evaluate the early and midterm outcomes after transapical (TA)-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with femoral and femoral-remote arteriopathies who cannot undergo transvascular approaches.

METHODS

Multimorbid patients with severe aortic stenosis and distinct panarteriopathy underwent TA-TAVI treatment between January 2012 and January 2021 at the authors' institution. Second- and third-generation self- and balloon-expanding valves were used. For patients without arterial access, TA-TAVI was modified to the artery-no-touch technique.

RESULTS

Seventy-two consecutive elderly patients (78.2 ± 6.9 years; 73% male) were included in the study. The Society of Thoracic Surgery-Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 7 ± 5%. No procedural deaths or conversion to conventional surgery was registered. The 30-day and midterm mortality rates were 5% and 28%, respectively. The median time of freedom from a composite of death and cardiocerebral adverse events was 34.3 months (95% confidence interval: 17.6-51.1). The rate of moderate/severe paravalvular leakage was 0%. The pacemaker rate was 11%.

CONCLUSIONS

TA-TAVI is a safe method with low-rate procedural complications and shows good early and midterm outcomes in patients with extensive panarteriopathy for whom transfemoral and other alternative transvascular approaches are contraindicated or at high interventional risk. The modified artery-no-touch TA-TAVI method is safe and feasible for selected patients with no other possible arterial approach.

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.

Vascular Complications in TAVR: Incidence, Clinical Impact, and Management

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has replaced surgical aortic valve replacement as the new gold standard in elderly patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. However, alongside this novel approach, new complications emerged that require swift diagnosis and adequate management. Vascular access marks the first step in a TAVR procedure. There are several possible access sites available for TAVR, including the transfemoral approach as well as transaxillary/subclavian, transcarotid, transapical, and transcaval. Most cases are primarily performed through a transfemoral approach, while other access routes are mainly conducted in patients not suitable for transfemoral TAVR. As vascular access is achieved primarily by large bore sheaths, vascular complications are one of the major concerns during TAVR. With rising numbers of TAVR being performed, the focus on prevention and successful management of vascular complications will be of paramount importance to lower morbidity and mortality of the procedures. Herein, we aimed to review the most common vascular complications associated with TAVR and summarize their diagnosis, management, and prevention of vascular complications in TAVR.

Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with aortic diseases

OBJECTIVES

Patients scheduled for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) treatment frequently present with concomitant aortic diseases, in which case they are usually considered to be at high interventional risk and, in particular, unable to undergo the transfemoral TAVI approach. Since the establishment of the 'transfemoral first' strategy for TAVI, there has been an evidence gap with regard to the outcomes of such patients. We aimed to evaluate the mid-term outcomes after transapical TAVI in patients with diverse aortic diseases.

METHODS

Fifty-five consecutive elderly patients (78.4 years; standard deviation: 8.6 years) at intermediate surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis and aortic diseases (porcelain aorta 36%, ascending aneurysm 15%, descending aneurysm 26%, type-B dissection 4%, aortic thrombus 7%, Leriche syndrome 4%, aortic kinking 11%, aortic ulcer 2%, previous aortic operation 20%, aortic elongation/tortuosity 4%) underwent transapical TAVI treatment between January 2011 and November 2019 at our institution. We used the second-and third-generation self- and balloon-expanding valves. The follow-up time was 92.6 patient-years.

RESULTS

The Society of Thoracic Surgery-Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 7% (standard deviation: 4%). The 30-day mortality and all-stroke rates were 6% and 4%, respectively. The median survival time was 24.9 months (95% confidence interval 17.6-32.3). The median time of freedom from a composite of death and cardio-cerebral adverse events was 24.3 months (95% confidence interval 11.9-36.8). The rate of moderate/severe paravalvular leakage was 2%. The pacemaker rate was 10%. No early or late aortic syndrome occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Transapical TAVI is a safe method and shows very promising early and mid-term outcomes, without early/late aortic syndrome, in patients with aortic diseases for whom transfemoral TAVI as the first-line transcatheter method might be contraindicated or not feasible.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients Who Cannot Undergo Transfemoral Access

INTRODUCTION

 Though transfemoral (TF) access has emerged as a gold standard access for patients with aortic stenosis who undergo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), there has been no study that has characterized patients who cannot undergo TF access in detail. We aim to evaluate the contraindications for TF access, their incidence, classify them, and provide the outcomes of patients who failed to be TF candidates.

METHODS

 From 925 patients who underwent TAVI between February 2014 and May 2020 at our heart center, 130 patients failed to be TF candidates and underwent transapical-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TA-TAVI). In this study, we included all those patients who failed to be TF candidates and underwent TA-TAVI using the third-generation balloon expandable valve (Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve [S3]) (116 patients; STS score 6.07 ± 4.4; age 79.4 ± 7).

RESULTS

 The incidence of patients unsuitable for TF access at our heart center was 14%. We classified this TAVI population into absolute contraindication for TF access n = 84 (72.5%) and increased interventional risk for TF access n = 32 (27.5%). After TA-TAVI of this specific population using S3, the in-hospital mortality and stroke were 1.7 and 1.7%, respectively. The vascular injury rate was 1.7%. We registered no paravalvular leakage ≥2. The pacemaker rate was 7.4%. The mean transvalvular pressure gradient was 8.7 mm Hg.

CONCLUSION

 The incidence of patients who cannot undergo TF access or who are at high interventional risk is considerably high. TA-TAVI, supported with sufficient interventional experience and appropriate valve system, represents an excellent alternative for patients with distinct vasculopathy.

Safety and efficacy of transaxillary transcatheter aortic valve replacement using a current-generation balloon-expandable valve

Background

Transaxillary access (TAx) has shown promise as an excellent alternative TAVR option, but data on the Edwards SAPIEN 3 in TAx-TAVR is limited. We sought to study the safety and efficacy of TAx-TAVR using this current-generation balloon-expandable valve.

Methods

A retrospective study of our first 24 TAx and 20 transthoracic (TT) TAVR patients treated with the SAPIEN 3 valve was performed, and the patients’ preoperative characteristics, procedural outcomes, and clinical outcomes were compared to our first 100 transfemoral (TF) patients using the SAPIEN 3 device.

Results

There were no statistical differences observed for outcomes between the TAx and TF groups, despite the TAx patients having more comorbidities (STS-PROM 11.3 ± 7.6 versus 7.3 ± 5.2, p = 0.042). In addition, no significant difference was found in the fluoroscopy time and contrast amount between the two groups. The patients’ baseline characteristics were similar between the TAx and TT groups. Their procedural and clinical outcomes were comparable, but there was a trend towards lower incidence of acute kidney injury (13.0% versus 23.5%), new-onset atrial fibrillation (5.6% versus 33.3%), shorter median length of stay postoperatively (4 versus 6 days), fewer discharges to rehabilitation (16.7% versus 35.0%), and a lower rate of readmission within 30-days (8.3% versus 35.0%), all favoring TAx access.

Conclusions

TAx-TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve is a safe alternative to TF access. It offers advantages of improved recovery over TT access, and appears to be a superior alternative-access option for TAVR. TAx access could be preferred when TF access is not feasible.

Oversized versus Non-oversized Prosthesis: Midterm Outcomes after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Using SAPIEN 3 Valve

BACKGROUND

 A certain degree of prosthesis oversizing is recommended for the SAPIEN 3 (S3; Edwards Lifesciences Corp., Irvine, California, United States) to ensure device success. We aimed to investigate midterm outcomes in patients who received oversized (OS) S3 valve after transapical-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TA-TAVR).

METHODS

 Out of 122 patients with aortic stenosis who underwent TA-TAVR using S3 at our institution, 42 received OS prosthesis. We used computed tomography (CT) derived effective diameter to assess oversizing. We defined oversizing if the labeled diameter of the selected valve for implantation was ≥2 mm bigger than the effective annulus diameter calculated by the annulus area. We conducted a midterm follow-up and compared the OS cohort with the non-OS (nOS) cohort.

RESULTS

 The study groups showed similar risk score and age (STS [Society of Thoracic Surgery] score: 5.4 ± 3; mean age: 80.7 ± 5.7). The 30-day mortality was 7.1% in OS versus 2.4% in nOS. The 30-day all-stroke was 2.4% in OS versus 0% in nOS. The 1- and 3-year all-cause mortality were 28.5 and 42.8% in OS versus 21.9 and 26.8% in nOS, respectively. Midterm freedom from death and from cardiocerebral events was similar in both groups. Moderate/severe paravalvular leakage occurred in 0% in OS versus 5.4% in nOS. The postdilation rate was 7.1% in OS versus 15.3% in nOS. The rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) was 15.7% in OS versus 9.3% in nOS. The STS score was detected as an independent predictor of mortality.

CONCLUSION

 Oversizing reduces the risk of device failure and intraprocedural postdilation but increases the risk of PPI. Early and midterm morbidity and mortality after OS and nOS with S3 are comparable.

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.

Self-expanding apical closure device for full-percutaneous closed-chest transapical valve procedures with large-sized introducer sheaths: first study in an animal model

OBJECTIVES

Available apical occluders do not fulfil requirements for full-percutaneous transapical valve procedures with large-sized introducer sheaths. A self-expanding closure device designed for closed-chest transapical valve procedures was tested in an animal model to verify safety, efficacy and thrombogenicity.

METHODS

Large-sized 21-Fr introducer sheaths (Certitude™ system for Sapien™ valves) were percutaneously placed in the ventricles of nine 3-month old minipigs. To seal the apical access, delivery catheters carrying folded self-expanding plugs were inserted. Then, the plugs were deployed while sheaths were removed. Echocardiograms verified tamponade and cardiac function, drains were not placed and a 3-month long aspirin therapy was administered. After 6 and 9 months, animals were euthanized and organs were analysed for macroembolic lesions search. Histological analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

Nine minipigs (weight: 28±3 kg) were used for this study. Eight plugs were successfully deployed in 8 ventricles without cardiac tamponade or ventricular dysfunction (success rate: 88.9%). In a failed procedure (the animal died after 1 month of cardiac tamponade), the outer disc of the apical plug got stuck in the intercostal space and did not correctly deploy. Post-mortem analysis in 8 minipigs at 6 (n = 4) and 9 months (n = 4) confirmed full deployment and good fixation of all plugs with internal surfaces covered by new endocardium. Macroscopic analysis of myocardium and vital organs showed absence of embolic lesions. Histological analysis showed absence of significant inflammatory infiltration and thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

In this animal model, self-expanding closure devices sealed 21-Fr large percutaneous apical accesses without acute tamponade, thrombosis or embolization. Further tests to evaluate full-percutaneous closed-chest apical procedures are required.