Transapical Versus Transaortic Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review

Trans-Brachial TAVI in a Patient with Aortic Isthmus Stenosis: A Case Report

BACKGROUND

TAVI indications expand not only to low-risk patients but also to patients with a more complex anatomy and comorbidities. Transfemoral retrograde access is recognized as the first preferred approach according to the current guidelines. However, this approach is not suitable in up to 10-15% of patients, for whom an alternative non-femoral access route is required.

CASE PRESENTATION

An 83-year-old male patient with known aortic isthmus stenosis presented with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Computed tomography revealed a subtotal isthmus stenosis, directly after left subclavian artery origin, with many collaterals extending toward the axillary and subclavian arteries. Duplex ultrasound verified the proximal diameter of the left brachial artery to be 5.5 mm. A successful surgical cutdown trans-brachial TAVI with an Evolut prosthetic valve with a size of 29 mm was performed. On the fourth postoperative day, the patient was discharged, and the three-month follow-up was uneventful.

CONCLUSION

In patients with aortic isthmus stenosis, the brachial artery could be a feasible alternative, as a less invasive access site, which can be determined after careful assessment of the vessel diameter. More data are required to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this access route and to achieve more technical improvements to increase operator familiarity with it.

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.

Ten-Year Experience with Transapical and Direct Transaortic Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement to Address Patients with Aortic Stenosis and Peripheral Vascular Disease

Objective: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) through alternative access routes is indicated in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis and diseased peripheral arteries. We analysed and compared the outcome of patients undergoing transapical (TA) and direct transaortic (TAO) TAVR procedures. Methods: Preoperative characteristics, procedural details, and thirty-day outcome of patients undergoing transapical (TA-TAVR group) and direct transaortic (TAO-TAVR group) TAVR procedures were prospectively collected and retrospectively analysed. Results: From March 2012 to March 2022, 81 TA and 82 TAO-TAVR (total: 163 cases) were performed with balloon-expanding (n = 120; 73.6%) and self-expandable (n = 43; 26.4%) valves. The mean age was 79.7 ± 6.2 and 81.9 ± 6.7 years for the TA- and TAO-TAVR groups, respectively (p = 0.032). Females were more represented in the TAO-TAVR group (56% vs. 32%; p = 0.003) while TA-TAVR patients showed a higher prevalence of previous vascular surgery (20% vs. 6%; p = 0.01), previous cardiac surgery (51% vs. 3.6%; p < 0.001), and porcelain aorta (22% vs. 5%; p = 0.001). The mean ejection fraction was 49.0 ± 14.6% (TA) and 53.5 ± 12.2% (TAO) (p = 0.035) while mean gradients were 35.6 ± 13.2 mmHg (TA) and 40.4 ± 16.1 mmHg (TAO) (p = 0.045). The median EuroSCORE-II was 5.0% (IQR: 3.0−11.0) and 3.9% (IQR: 2.5−5.4) for the TA- and TAO-TAVR groups, respectively (p = 0.005). The procedural time was shorter for TA procedures (97 min (IQR: 882−118) vs. 102 min (IQR: 88−129); p = 0.133). Mortality at day 30 was 6% in both groups (p = 1.000); the permanent pacemaker implantation rate was similar (8.6% vs. 9.7%; p = 1.000), and hospital stay was shorter for the TAO group (8 days (IQR: 6−11) vs. 10 days (IQR: 7−13); p = 0.025). Conclusions: Our results show that transapical and direct transaortic TAVR in high-risk patients with diseased peripheral arteries provide satisfactory clinical results with similar thirty-day outcomes.

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.

Surgery after Failed Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Indications and Outcomes of a Concerning Condition

OBJECTIVES

The number of transcatheter aortic valve implantations (TAVI) has increased enormously in recent decades. Transcatheter valve prosthesis failure and the requirement of conventional surgical replacement are expected to attract more focus in the near future. Indeed, given the scarcity of research in this field, the next decade will likely represent the beginning of a period of meaningful exploration of the degenerative changes that occur with transcatheter valves. The current study represents-through a series of consecutive cases-one of the first analyses of the underlying causes of TAVI failure, i.e., degenerative, functional and infective, followed by surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and postoperative outcome.

METHODS

Between October 2008 and March 2021, 2098 TAVI procedures, including 1423 with transfemoral, 309 with transapical, and 366 with transaortic access, were performed in our institution. Among these, 0.5% (number(n) = 11) required acute SAVR (n = 6) within 7 days (n = 3) or later (n = 2), and were included in the study.

RESULTS

Valve stent dislocation was the most common cause of replacement (83%). Causes of replacement within 7 days after TAVI were multifactorial. In the later course, endocarditis was the sole indication for SAVR after TAVI. TAVI with transapical or transaortal approach had a higher EuroSCORE II (10.9 (7.2-35.3) vs. 3.5 (1.8-7.8)). Their 30-day mortality after surgical conversion was higher (67% vs. 20%), when compared to those who underwent a transfemoral procedure. The longest documented survival beyond 30 days was 58 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The causes of SAVR after TAVI failure are multifactorial, and include biological, physical and infectious factors. An acceptable midterm prognosis may be expected in patients with physical causes when dislocation of the catheter prosthesis is observed; in such cases, emergency conversion is required. Conversion due to infection, as in cases of endocarditis, had the worst outcome. Prognosis after conversion due to degeneration is still problematic, due to a lack of autopsies and the recent history of prosthetic implantations.

Shockwave and Non-transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a widely adopted treatment modality for severe aortic stenosis. Transfemoral access is the approach of choice; however, approximately 25% of patients undergoing TAVR also have concomitant peripheral arterial disease. The recent advent of intravascular lithotripsy has enabled preservation of transfemoral access in some patients; although, a proportion still require alternative, non-femoral access. Alternative access sites can be broadly categorized into transthoracic and peripheral, facilitated by surgical or percutaneous techniques. In this review, the technical details and clinical outcomes of various TAVR accesses are discussed. Initially, transthoracic approaches were most common, but recently, the trend has been toward alternative peripheral access due to superior outcomes. Although there are no randomized data to support all the alternative access sites, the experiences reported provide available options for a large portion of patients to be candidates for TAVR. The intervention site should be selected by a multidisciplinary heart team based on patient anatomical factors and institutional expertise.

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.

Undeliverable Sapien 3 prosthesis in transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation

In transaortic (TAo) trasncatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), direct transmission of forces to the stenotic aortic valve is possible. Therefore, the need of balloon aortic valvoplasty in TAo-TAVI may be very limited regarding the deliverability of TAVI prosthesis. However, if the TAVI prosthesis becomes undeliverable, it becomes seriously problematic. Herein, we present a case of TAo-TAVI in which the TAVI prosthesis was undeliverable, and it was forcefully pushed together with the introducer system into the aortic valve as a bailout technique.

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.

Safety and effectiveness of a transaortic approach for TAVI: procedural and midterm outcomes of 265 consecutive patients in a single centre

OBJECTIVES

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a transaortic approach (TAo-TAVI) is an alternative to transapical or femoral access. We studied the procedural and midterm efficacy and safety of TAo-TAVI with Edwards Sapien XT and Medtronic CoreValve devices.

METHODS

Among 901 patients receiving TAVI since 2006, 265 consecutive patients underwent TAo-TAVI between January 2011 and September 2014. Procedural and midterm results were evaluated according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria.

RESULTS

The mean age was 83 ± 5 years. Sapien XT and CoreValve were used in 191 (72.1%) and 74 (27.9%) patients, respectively. Full sternotomy made elective concomitant off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting possible in 38 patients (14.3%) with severe coronary artery disease unsuitable for percutaneous coronary intervention. The device success rate was 95.5%. Postprocedural paravalvular leak  ≥2/4 was observed in 16 patients (6.4%). Emergency open chest surgery was required in 10 patients (3.8%) (3 aortic dissections, 3 valve embolizations, 2 LMCA occlusions, 1 aortic annulus rupture and 1 aortic rupture). Cerebrovascular accidents occurred in 3 patients (1.1%). Transfusions  ≥4 units were required in 36 patients (13.6%). New pacemakers were implanted in 26 patients (9.8%). Thirty-day and 1-year mortality were 8.7% and 16.2%, respectively. Mean follow-up duration was 24 ± 6 months. At 3 years, freedom from all-cause death was 80% ± 4%. New York Heart Association class &lt;III included 81% (n = 172) of patients alive and without prosthetic echocardiographic dysfunction at follow-up (mean gradient 10.5 ± 5.6 mmHg).

CONCLUSION

The TAo-TAVI approach confirms its safety and effectiveness with satisfactory procedural and midterm outcomes with both currently available devices.

TAVI-in-homograft (TiH): open transcatheter aortic valve replacement in calcified aortic homograft case reports

Background

Redo surgery in patient who underwent aortic valve replacement with an aortic homograft can result technically challenging because of the massive calcification of the conduit.

Case presentation

We present a case of a patient who underwent open surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass assistance to implant a standard transcatheter aortic bioprosthesis through aortotomy in an off-label procedure and we discuss its safety and feasibility.

Conclusions

The combination of open cardiac surgery and open trans-aortic implant of a transcatheter prosthesis may reduce the surgical risk shrinking the technical difficulties that the implantation of a standard surgical prosthesis would have given.

Propensity-matched comparison of clinical outcomes after transaortic versus transfemoral aortic valve replacement

AIMS

We aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of transaortic (TAo-AVR) and transfemoral (TF-AVR) transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between January 2012 and December 2015, consecutive TAo-AVR and TF-AVR cases were compared using a propensity score-matching analysis. Primary endpoints were 30-day and one-year mortality; 644 TAVR patients were included (163 TAo-AVR and 481 TF-AVR). Peripheral artery disease (31.9% vs. 5%, p<0.001) and coronary artery disease (50.0% vs. 39.3%, p=0.009) were more frequent in TAo-AVR patients. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores were not different (6.9% vs. 6.5%, p=0.243). Propensity matching identified 124 well-matched patient pairs. Thirty-day and one-year mortality rates were similar in the overall population of TAo-AVR and TF-AVR patients (7.3% vs 7.6%, p=0.8 and 18.4% vs. 15.8%, p=0.6, respectively), and in the matched cohort (7.3% vs. 6.5%, p=0.8 and 15.3% vs. 16.1%, p=0.8, respectively). Transaortic access was associated with higher risk of new onset of atrial fibrillation (NOAF) (24.4% vs. 9.6%, p=0.012), life-threatening bleedings (6.5% vs. 0.8%, p=0.036) and transfusion (41% vs. 16.7%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences were observed between the respective 30-day and one-year mortality rates of TAo-AVR and TF-AVR patients. The transaortic approach thus constitutes a valid alternative to TF-AVR, but is associated with higher rates of NOAF, bleedings, and transfusion.

Transaortic Access Using Vascular Graft for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

A 92-year-old man with acute heart failure due to severe aortic stenosis underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Computed tomography demonstrated severe stenosis of the right common iliac artery, occlusion of the left external iliac artery, and stenosis of the left subclavian artery. Severe calcification was observed in the sinotubular junction, which was considered a risk factor for aortic dissection with transapical TAVI using a balloon-expanding bioprosthetic valve. Therefore, transaortic (TAo) access was the only option for this high-risk surgical patient. As the maximum distance from the aortic valve annulus to the sheath insertion point was less than 60 mm, TAVI was performed transaortically using a vascular graft that extended this distance, in order to avoid sheath dislocation. Our experience demonstrates that vascular graft application is a viable option in patients with an inadequate distance between the aortic valve annulus and the puncture site in TAo-TAVI.

Access Sites for TAVI: Patient Selection Criteria, Technical Aspects, and Outcomes

During the last ten years, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a reliable and valid alternative treatment for elderly patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis requiring valve replacement and being at high or intermediate surgical risk. While common femoral arteries are the access site of choice in the vast majority of TAVI patients, in up to 15–20% of TAVI candidates this route might be precluded due to the presence of diffuse atherosclerotic disease, tortuosity or small vessel diameter. Therefore, in order to achieve an antegrade or retrograde implant, several alterative access routes have been described, namely trans-axillary, trans-aortic, trans-apical, trans-carotid, trans-septal, and trans-caval. The aim of this paper is to give a concise overview on vascular access sites for TAVI, with a particular focus on patient's selection criteria, imaging, technical aspects, and clinical outcome.

A Review of Alternative Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

With the advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), appropriately selected intermediate-, high-, and extreme-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) are now offered a less invasive option compared to conventional surgery. In contemporary practice, TAVR is performed predominantly via a transfemoral arterial approach, whereby a transcatheter heart valve (THV) is delivered in a retrograde fashion through the iliofemoral arterial system and thoraco-abdominal aorta, into the native aortic valve annulus. While the majority of patients possess suitable anatomy for transfemoral arterial access, there is a subset of patients with extensive peripheral vascular disease that precludes this traditional approach to TAVR. Fortunately, innovation in the field of structural heart disease has led to the refinement of alternative access options for THV delivery. Selection of the most appropriate route of therapy mandates a careful consideration of multiple factors, including patient anatomy, technical feasibility, and equipment specifications. Furthermore, understanding the risks conferred by each access site for valve delivery-notably stroke, vascular injury, and major bleeding-is of paramount importance when selecting the approach that will best optimize the outcome for an individual. In this review, we provide a comprehensive summary of alternative approaches to transfemoral arterial TAVR as well as the available outcome data supporting each of these various techniques.

Three-Year Survival Comparison between Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Intermediate- and Low-Risk Patients

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is a suitable therapeutic intervention for patients deemed inoperable or high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement. Current investigations question whether it is a suitable alternative to surgery for intermediate- and low-risk patients. The following meta-analysis presents a comparison between transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients that are intermediate and low risk for surgery. Articles were collected via an electronic search using Google Scholar and PubMed. Articles of interest included studies comparing the survival of intermediate- and low-risk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation to those undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement. Primary end points included 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival. Secondary end points included postintervention thromboembolic events, stroke, transient ischemic attacks, major vascular complications, permanent pacemaker implantation, life-threatening bleeding, acute kidney injury, atrial fibrillation, and moderate-to-severe aortic regurgitation. Six studies met the criteria for the meta-analysis. One- and two-year survival comparisons showed no difference between the two interventions. Surgical aortic valve replacement, however, presented with favorable 3-year survival compared with the transcatheter approach. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation had more major vascular complications, permanent pacemaker implantation, and moderate-to-severe aortic regurgitation rates compared with surgery. Surgical aortic valve replacement presented more life-threatening bleeding, acute kidney injury, and atrial fibrillation compared with a transcatheter approach. There was no statistical difference between the two approaches in terms of thromboembolic events, strokes, or transient ischemic attack rates. Surgical aortic valve replacement presents favorable 3-year survival rates compared with transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

The future of heart valve replacement: recent developments and translational challenges for heart valve tissue engineering

Heart valve replacement is often the only solution for patients suffering from valvular heart disease. However, currently available valve replacements require either life-long anticoagulation or are associated with valve degeneration and calcification. Moreover, they are suboptimal for young patients, because they do not adapt to the somatic growth. Tissue-engineering has been proposed as a promising approach to fulfil the urgent need for heart valve replacements with regenerative and growth capacity. This review will start with an overview on the currently available valve substitutes and the techniques for heart valve replacement. The main focus will be on the evolution of and different approaches for heart valve tissue engineering, namely the in vitro, in vivo and in situ approaches. More specifically, several heart valve tissue-engineering studies will be discussed with regard to their shortcomings or successes and their possible suitability for novel minimally invasive implantation techniques. As in situ heart valve tissue engineering based on cell-free functionalized starter materials is considered to be a promising approach for clinical translation, this review will also analyse the techniques used to tune the inflammatory response and cell recruitment upon implantation in order to stir a favourable outcome: controlling the blood-material interface, regulating the cytokine release, and influencing cell adhesion and differentiation. In the last section, the authors provide their opinion about the future developments and the challenges towards clinical translation and adaptation of heart valve tissue engineering for valve replacement. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Application of a Multidisciplinary Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Pathway to Improve Patient Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have proven effective in a variety of surgical specialties. Published reports on these pathways within cardiac surgery and interventional cardiology are limited. Invasive aortic valve replacement procedures are increasingly being performed by hybrid groups of interventional cardiologists and surgeons through transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The TAVI patient population is at a higher surgical risk compared with those undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement since they are older, frailer, and have significant co-morbidities which result in an increased risk of perioperative complications. ERAS protocols have the potential to help these patients undergoing TAVI procedures. In conclusion, we propose a TAVI ERAS protocol with a call-to-action for other centers to implement an ERAS protocol to improve hospital and cardiac outcomes.

Transaortic transcatheter aortic valve replacement through a right minithoracotomy with the balloon-expandable Sapien 3 valve

Transaortic transcatheter aortic valve replacement performed through a right anterolateral minithoracotomy at the second intercostal space is a safe and standardized minimally invasive procedure carrying important clinical advantages for the patient, in particular, no damage to the ventricular apex, preservation of the diseased peripheral arteries and no cross of the aortic arch with the delivery system, meaning a lower risk of calcium dislodgement and neurological complications. Using the third-generation, balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien™ 3 transcatheter heart valve and the Certitude™ delivery system, the transaortic procedure is easily performed under fluoroscopic and echocardiographic guidance. Compared with the transapical procedure, the transaortic technique requires an inversely mounted stent valve and follows the standard guidelines for valve positioning and deployment under rapid pacing. The transaortic approach through a right anterolateral minithoracotomy at the second intercostal space combines the positive aspects of both transfemoral and transapical valve replacements without the risks of either procedure (left ventricular, coronary and peripheral vascular injuries).