Direct aortic route versus transaxillary route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Meta-Analysis on Transcarotid Versus Transfemoral and Other Alternate Accesses for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcarotid access has emerged as the preferred access site for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with prohibitive iliofemoral anatomy. This study aimed to compare outcomes with transcarotid with those of other accesses in patients who underwent TAVI. Cochrane, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases were searched for all published studies that compared outcomes with transcarotid with those of other accesses (transfemoral, transaxillary/subclavian, transaortic, and transapical) in patients who underwent TAVI. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included major bleeding, major vascular complications, stroke, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker implantation, and peri-aortic valve insufficiency. We included 22 observational studies with a total of 11,896 patients. Outcomes were reported during hospitalization and at 1-month follow-up. The transcarotid approach had higher mortality at 1 month (3.7% vs 2.6%, p = 0.02) but lower major vascular complications during hospitalization (1.5% vs 3.4%, p = 0.04) than did transfemoral access. The transcarotid approach had lower major vascular complications (2% vs 2.3%, p = 0.04) than did the transaxillary/subclavian but higher major bleeding (5.3% vs 2.6%, p = 0.03). The transaortic approach was associated with higher in-hospital (11.7% vs 1.9%, p = 0.02) and 1-month mortality (14.4% vs 3.9%, p = 0.007) rates than was transcarotid access. The transcarotid approach numerically reduced mortality and the risk of major vascular complications and major bleeding compared with the transapical approach; however, this did not reach statistical significance. The transcarotid approach did not increase the risk of stroke compared with transfemoral or the other alternative accesses. In conclusion, the transcarotid or transaxillary/subclavian approach had associated comparable outcomes that were better than those of the transapical and transaortic approaches. There was no difference in stroke risk between transcarotid access and other accesses.

Percutaneous trans-axilla transcatheter aortic valve replacement

The left axillary artery is an attractive alternative access route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and may provide better outcomes compared to other alternatives. Nevertheless, there remain concerns about vascular complications, lack of compressibility, and thorax-related complications. Between March 2019 and March 2021, 13 patients underwent transaxillary TAVR for severe aortic stenosis at the University Hospital Bonn. The puncture was performed with a puncture at the distal segment of the axillary artery through the axilla, with additional femoral access for applying a safety wire inside the axillary artery. Device success was defined according to the VARC 2 criteria. The study participants were advanced in age (77 ± 9 years old), and 54% were female, with an intermediate risk for surgery (STS risk score 4.7 ± 2.0%). The average diameter of the distal segment of the axillary artery was 5.8 ± 1.0 mm (i.e., the puncture site) and 7.6 ± 0.9 mm for the proximal axillary artery. Device success was achieved in all patients. 30-day major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were 0%. With complete percutaneous management, stent-graft implantation was performed at the puncture site in 38.5% of patients. Minor bleeding was successfully managed with manual compression. Moreover, no thorax-related complications, hematomas, or nerve injuries were observed. Percutaneous trans-axilla TAVR was found to be feasible and safe. This modified approach may mitigate the risk of bleeding and serious complications in the thorax and be less invasive than surgical alternatives.

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.

Predictors of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

As transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technology expands to healthy and lower‐risk populations, the burden and predictors of procedure‐related complications including the need for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation needs to be identified.

Methods and Results

Digital databases were systematically searched to identify studies reporting the incidence of PPM implantation after TAVR. A random‐ and fixed‐effects model was used to calculate unadjusted odds ratios (OR) for all predictors. A total of 78 studies, recruiting 31 261 patients were included in the final analysis. Overall, 6212 patients required a PPM, with a mean of 18.9% PPM per study and net rate ranging from 0.16% to 51%. The pooled estimates on a random‐effects model indicated significantly higher odds of post‐TAVR PPM implantation for men (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04–1.28); for patients with baseline mobitz type‐1 second‐degree atrioventricular block (OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.64–5.93), left anterior hemiblock (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.09–1.86), bifascicular block (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.52–4.42), right bundle‐branch block (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 2.17–2.83), and for periprocedural atriorventricular block (OR, 4.17; 95% CI, 2.69–6.46). The mechanically expandable valves had 1.44 (95% CI, 1.18–1.76), while self‐expandable valves had 1.93 (95% CI, 1.42–2.63) fold higher odds of PPM requirement compared with self‐expandable and balloon‐expandable valves, respectively.

Conclusions

Male sex, baseline atrioventricular conduction delays, intraprocedural atrioventricular block, and use of mechanically expandable and self‐expanding prosthesis served as positive predictors of PPM implantation in patients undergoing TAVR.