Network meta-analysis comparing the short and long-term outcomes of alternative access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Association Between Polyvascular Disease and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes: Insights From the STS/ACC TVT Registry

BACKGROUND

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is highly prevalent in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Polyvascular disease (PVD), defined as involvement of ≥2 vascular beds (VBs), that is, coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral, portends a poor prognosis in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; however, data on the association of PVD with outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR are limited.

METHODS

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry was analyzed to identify patients who underwent TAVR from November 2011 to March 2022. The exposure of interest was PVD. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included major vascular complications, major/life-threatening bleeding, myocardial infarction, transient ischemic attack/stroke, and valve- and non-valve-related readmissions. Outcomes were assessed at 30 days and 1 year.

RESULTS

Of 443 790 patients who underwent TAVR, PVD was present in 150 823 (34.0%; 111 425 [25.1%] with 2VB-PVD and 39 398 [8.9%] with 3VB-PVD). On multivariable analysis, PVD was associated with increased all-cause mortality at 1 year (hazard ratio, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.14-1.20]). There was an incremental increase in 1-year mortality with an increasing number of VBs involved (no PVD [reference]; 2VB-PVD: hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.09-1.15]: and 3VB-PVD: hazard ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.26-1.36]). Patients with versus without PVD had higher rates of major vascular complications, major/life-threatening bleeding, transient ischemic attack/stroke, and non-valve-related readmissions at 30 days and 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

PVD is associated with worse outcomes after TAVR, and the risk is highest in patients with 3VB-PVD.

Transcarotid versus transaxillary access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement with a self-expanding valve: A propensity-matched analysis

Transaxillary access has been the most frequently used nonfemoral access route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding valve. Use of transcarotid TAVR is increasing; however, comparative data on these methods are limited. We compared outcomes following transcarotid or transaxillary TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular valve.

Methods

The Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry was queried for TAVR procedures using transaxillary and transcarotid access between July 2015 and June 2021. Patients received a self-expanding Evolut R, PRO, or PRO + valve (Medtronic) and had 1-year follow-up. Thirty-day and 1-year outcomes were compared in transcarotid and transaxillary groups after 1:2 propensity score-matching. Multivariable regression models were fitted to identify predictors of key end points.

Results

The propensity score-matched cohort included 576 patients receiving transcarotid and 1142 receiving transaxillary access. Median procedure time (99 vs 118 minutes; P < .001) and hospital stay (2 vs 3 days; P < .001) were shorter with transcarotid versus transaxillary access. At 30 days, patients with transcarotid access had similar mortality (Kaplan-Meier estimates 3.7% vs 4.3%, P = .57) but significantly lower stroke (3.1% vs 5.9%; P = .017) and mortality or stroke (6.0% vs 8.9%; P = .033) compared with patients receiving transaxillary access. Similar differences were observed at 1 year. Transaxillary access was associated with increased risk of 30-day stroke (hazard ratio, 2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-3.58) by multivariable regression analysis.

Conclusions

Transcarotid versus transaxillary access for TAVR using a self-expanding valve is associated with procedural benefits and significantly lower stroke and mortality or stroke at 30 days. In patients with unsuitable femoral anatomy, transcarotid access may be the preferred delivery route for self-expanding valves.

Comparison of Alternative Peripheral and Transfemoral Approaches for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis of Propensity-Matched Studies

Background. Transfemoral (TF) access is the gold standard for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Alternative peripheral (AP) artery access such as the carotid or axillary artery is considered when the feasibility of femoral access is in doubt. The outcomes comparison of these 2 approaches is unclear due to limited sample sizes in prior studies. Our aim is to compare the clinical outcomes of TF- and AP-TAVR by conducting a meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies. Methods. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from inception up to and including February 2022 were searched by 3 separate researchers to identify articles reporting propensity-matched, comparative data on TF vs. AP-TAVR. Clinical outcomes were extracted from the articles and pooled for analysis. Results. Seven prior studies, including 9,004 patients, were included in our study, with 6,729 in the TF group and 2,275 in the AP group. In all studies, the baseline characteristics of the patients were highly propensity-matched with the full Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-analysis revealed higher in-hospital/30-day mortality (3.3% vs. 4.4%; OR 0.69; 95% CI (0.51, 0.94); $P=0.02$ ) as well as the incidence of stroke (1.9% vs. 3.5%; OR 0.60; 95% CI (0.43, 0.84); $P=0.003$ ) for the AP group. There were no significant differences in the incidence of major vascular complications, pacemaker implantation, bleeding, or acute kidney injury. Conclusions. Our meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies showed AP-TAVR contains an additional 1.1% risk of early mortality and an additional 1.6% risk of stroke compared to TF-TAVR. These risks should be considered when deciding on access.

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.

Transcaval transcatheter aortic valve implantation in bicuspid aortic valve: A step-by-step procedural guidance

We report the case of a 78-year-old female with Sapien 3 transcatheter heart valve implantation in the transcaval approach. In this setting, we describe the step-by-step management and technique of the transcaval transcatheter aortic valve implantation.