Role of different vascular approaches on transcatheter aortic valve implantation outcome: a single-center study

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Percutaneous to Surgical Access in Trans-Femoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

To compare the outcomes in trans-femoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) performed with percutaneous approach (PC) versus surgical cut-down (SC). In 13 trials including 5,859 patients (PC = 3447, SC = 2412), the outcomes based on Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria were compared between PC and SC in TF-TAVI. Compared with SC, PC was associated with similar major vascular complications (VCs) (8.7% vs 8.5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76 to 1.15, p = 0.53), major bleeding (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.66 to 1.8, p = 0.73), perioperative mortality (5.7% vs 5.2%; OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.85 to 1.49, p = 0.4), urgent surgical repair (OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 0.81 to 2.02, p = 0.3), stroke (3.3% vs 3.9%; OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.36, p = 0.5), myocardial infarction (1.3% vs 1.1%; OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.53 to 2.12, p = 0.86), and renal failure (5.2% vs 5.9%; OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.38 to 1.22, p = 0.2), but shorter hospital stay (9.1 ± 8.5 vs 9.6 ± 9.5 days; mean difference = -1.07 day, 95% CI = -2.0 to -0.15, p = 0.02) and less blood transfusion (18.5% vs 25.7%; OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.43-0.86, p = 0.005). Minor VCs occurred more frequently in PC compared to SC (11.9% vs 6.9%; OR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.04-2.67, p = 0.03). In conclusion, in TF-TAVI, PC is a safe and feasible alternative to SC, and adopting either approach depends on operator experience after ensuring that vascular access could be safely achieved with that specific technique.

Comparison of early and midterm outcomes after transsubclavian/axillary versus transfemoral, transapical, or transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Outcomes after transsubclavian/transaxillary (TSc/TAx)-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have been unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To compare outcomes after TSc/TAx-TAVI versus transfemoral (TF)-TAVI, transapical (TAp)-TAVI, or transaortic (TAo)-TAVI, we performed meta-analysis of currently available studies.

METHODS

Studies considered for inclusion met the following criteria: the study population was patients undergoing TAVI; patients were assigned to TSc/TAx-TAVI and TF-TAVI, TAp-TAVI, or TAo-TAVI; and at least one of postprocedural early (30-day or in-hospital) or late (including early) outcomes was reported. An odds or hazard ratio of each early or late outcome with its 95% confidence interval for TSc/TAx-TAVI versus the other approach was extracted from each individual study and combined in the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Our search identified 15 eligible reports from 12 studies including 10,528 patients. Pooled analysis of early all-cause mortality demonstrated a statistically significant reduction after TSc/TAx-TAVI compared with TAp-TAVI (P = 0.003) or TAo-TAVI (P = 0.03). Pooled analysis of early pacemaker implantation demonstrated a statistically significant increase after TSc/TAx-TAVI compared with TAp-TAVI (P = 0.0001) or TAo-TAVI (P < 0.00001). Pooled analysis of midterm all-cause mortality demonstrated a statistically significant increase after TSc/TAx-TAVI compared with TF-TAVI (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Early all-cause mortality was lower after TSc/TAx-TAVI than TAp-TAVI or TAo-TAVI, early pacemaker implantation was more frequent after TSc/TAx-TAVI than TAp-TAVI or TAo-TAVI, and midterm all-cause mortality was higher after TSc/TAx-TAVI than TF-TAVI.

A meta-analysis on clinical outcomes after transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation by the Heart Team

AIMS

We aimed to perform a meta-analysis on transaortic (TAo) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in order to gain more insight into the safety and efficacy of the approach in addition to the data available from selected centres with small numbers of patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PubMed and EMBASE were searched on 31 August 2016. The search yielded 251 studies, of which 16 with 1,907 patients were included in the meta-analysis. All were observational, single-arm studies. The rate of conversion to sternotomy was 3.2% (95% CI: 2.3-3.5%; I2=0) among nine studies. Device success among 10 studies was 91% (95% CI: 86.7-94.0%; I2=25.5). Major vascular complications occurred at a rate of 3.1% (95% CI: 1.6-6.0%; I2=60.8). Moderate or severe paravalvular leakage/aortic valve regurgitation (PVL/AR) was reported to be 6.7% (95% CI: 4.3-10.1%; I2=58.9). Permanent pacemaker implantation was required in 11.7% (95% CI: 9.2-14.8%; I2=26.5) of patients. Pooled 30-day post-TAVI complication rates were 9.9% (95% CI: 8.6-11.3%; I2=0) for mortality, 3.7% (95% CI: 2.4-5.6%; I2=28.7) for all stroke, and 1.0% for myocardial infarction (95% CI: 0.5-1.7%; I2=0). The Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) composite safety endpoint occurred at a pooled rate of 16.7% (95% CI: 10.6-25.3%; I2=58.7).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis of observational studies, transaortic TAVI appears to be a safe procedure with low complication rates.