Transcatheter aortic valve implantation through distal axillary artery: novel option for vascular 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.

The Transaxillary Route as a Second Access Option in TAVI Procedures: Experience of a Single Centre

Background: The aim of our study was to determine the feasibility and efficacy of transaxillary (TAX) TAVI in patients not eligible for the transfemoral route. Methods: This is a retrospective study of a single center. We analysed 262 patients treated with TAVI. In 17 patients (6.5%), the procedure was performed with the TAX approach. Procedural and hospital data, 30-day safety, and clinical efficacy were assessed and compared between the transfemoral and TAX groups. Results: In the TAX groups, we found a higher prevalence of men (p = 0.001), smokers (p = 0.033), and previous strokes (p = 0.02). The EUROSCORE II was higher in the TAX group (p = 0.014). The success rate of the device was 100%. TAX was associated with a longer procedure time (p = 0.001) and shorter median device time (p = 0.034) in minutes. Patients treated with TAX had a longer hospital stay (p = 0.005) and higher overall bleeding rate (p = 0.001). Peripheral neurological complications were more frequent with TAX (p = 0.001), which almost completely resolved by 30 days. Conclusions: TAX TAVI is safe and effective and should be considered as a second choice when transfemoral TAVI is not feasible due to severe comorbidities.

Impact of Primary Hemostasis Disorders on Late Major Bleeding Events among Anticoagulated Atrial Fibrillation Patients Treated by TAVR

BACKGROUND

Bleeding events are among the striking complications following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), and bleeding prediction models are crucially warranted. Several studies have highlighted that primary hemostasis disorders secondary to persistent loss of high-molecular-weight (HMW) multimers of the von Willebrand factor (vWF) and assessed by adenosine diphosphate closure time (CT-ADP) may be a strong predictor of late major/life-threatening bleeding complications (MLBCs). Pre-existing atrial fibrillation (AF) is a frequent comorbidity in TAVR patients and potentially associated with increased bleeding events after the procedure.

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the impact of ongoing primary hemostasis disorders, as assessed by post-procedural CT-ADP > 180 s, on clinical events after TAVR among anticoagulated AF patients.

METHODS

An ongoing primary hemostasis disorder was defined by post-procedure CT-ADP > 180 s. Bleeding complications were assessed according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) criteria. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of late MLBCs at one-year follow-up. The secondary endpoint was a composite of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and rehospitalization for heart failure.

RESULTS

In total, 384 TAVR patients were included in the analysis. Of these patients, 57 patients (14.8%) had a prolongated CT-ADP > 180 s. Increased MLBCs were observed in patients with CT-ADP > 180 s (35.1% versus 1.2%; p < 0.0001). Conversely, the occurrence of the composite endpoint did not differ between the groups. Multivariate analysis identified CT-ADP > 180 s (HR 28.93; 95% CI 9.74-85.95; p < 0.0001), bleeding history, paradoxical aortic stenosis (AS), and major vascular complications following TAVR as independent predictors of late MLBCs.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with anticoagulated AF, a post-procedural CT-ADP > 180 s was identified as a strong independent predictor of late MLBCs. These findings suggest that persistent primary hemostasis disorders contribute to a higher risk of late bleeding events and should be considered for a tailored, risk-adjusted antithrombotic therapy after TAVR.

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.

Portico Sheathless Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation via Distal Axillary Artery

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation has been designed to treat older patients affected by severe aortic stenosis who are considered high-risk surgical candidates because of multiple comorbidities. The least invasive approach for transcatheter aortic valves implantation should be considered the transfemoral retrograde route, because it is minimally invasive and is feasible with local anesthesia and mild sedation. Despite significant technical improvements in recent years, the transfemoral approach is contraindicated in cases of severe peripheral artery disease. We describe the first case of a Portico transcatheter aortic valve implantation system (St. Jude Medical, Minneapolis, MN) made through the distal axillary artery in a 90-year-old patient affected by severe aortic stenosis.

Current status of transcatheter aortic valve replacement

The advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has modified the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS). Large randomized trials and multicenter registries have endorsed the efficacy of TAVR in improving outcomes in patients with severe AS who are inoperable or high surgical risk. There has been a noticeable shift in using TAVR in patients with AS who are not at a high surgical risk. Appropriate diagnosis, patient selection, and referral remain cornerstones to achieving optimal outcomes after TAVR or SAVR (surgical aortic valve replacement).