Transcarotid Approach for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Sapien 3 Prosthesis

Indications, contraindications, and safety aspects of procedural sedation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is a steadily increasing demand for procedural sedation outside the operating room, frequently performed in comorbid high-risk adult patients. This review evaluates the feasibility and advantages of sedation vs. general anesthesia for some of these new procedures.

RECENT FINDINGS

Generally, sedation performed by experienced staff is safe. Although for some endoscopic or transcatheter interventions sedation is feasible, results of the intervention might be improved when performed under general anesthesia. For elected procedures like intra-arterial treatment after acute ischemic stroke, avoiding general anesthesia and sedation at all might be the optimal treatment.

SUMMARY

Anesthesiologists are facing continuously new indications for procedural sedation in sometimes sophisticated diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. Timely availability of anesthesia staff will mainly influence who is performing sedation, anesthesia or nonanesthesia personal. While the number of absolute contraindications for sedation decreased to almost zero, relative contraindications are becoming more relevant and should be tailored to the individual procedure and patient.

Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

There are scant data on long-term clinical outcomes and bioprosthetic-valve function after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and intermediate surgical risk.

METHODS

We enrolled 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at 57 centers. Patients were stratified according to intended transfemoral or transthoracic access (76.3% and 23.7%, respectively) and were randomly assigned to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement. Clinical, echocardiographic, and health-status outcomes were followed for 5 years. The primary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke.

RESULTS

At 5 years, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death from any cause or disabling stroke between the TAVR group and the surgery group (47.9% and 43.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.25; P = 0.21). Results were similar for the transfemoral-access cohort (44.5% and 42.0%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.20), but the incidence of death or disabling stroke was higher after TAVR than after surgery in the transthoracic-access cohort (59.3% vs. 48.3%; hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.71). At 5 years, more patients in the TAVR group than in the surgery group had at least mild paravalvular aortic regurgitation (33.3% vs. 6.3%). Repeat hospitalizations were more frequent after TAVR than after surgery (33.3% vs. 25.2%), as were aortic-valve reinterventions (3.2% vs. 0.8%). Improvement in health status at 5 years was similar for TAVR and surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with aortic stenosis who were at intermediate surgical risk, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death or disabling stroke at 5 years after TAVR as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01314313.).

Review of alternative access in transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has surpassed surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) as the most common treatment strategy for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis over the past decade. As TAVR technology has continued to advance, it has been expanded from being an option only for extreme risk patients to now being the preferred option for the majority of patients with severe aortic stenosis. Recent trials have shown that TAVR is superior or non-inferior to SAVR even in patients at low surgical risk. One limitation of TAVR is the need for large bore vascular access. This has improved over time with smaller sheath sizes and improved delivery systems, but is still a significant issue in a patient population that often has many comorbidities including peripheral arterial disease. Early in the TAVR experience the only option for alternative access was transapical access, which has consistently been linked to increased procedural complications and worsened clinical outcomes. However, in recent years several centers have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of several alternative access strategies including transaxillary, transcarotid, transcaval, and direct aortic. There are no randomized data comparing these strategies, so access site approach is chosen by the multidisciplinary heart team based on patient anatomy and site expertise. We will review the current data in alternative access that in our view supports prioritizing a transaxillary or transcarotid strategy. In addition, we will describe our center's pre-procedural planning, peri-procedural approach, and propose an algorithm for alternative access.

Meta-analysis Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Transcarotid Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

We performed a systemic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating transcarotid vascular access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Published studies evaluating transcarotid vascular access for TAVI were included in this analysis. Outcomes of interest included 30-day mortality, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), new pacemaker implantation, acute kidney injury (AKI), major vascular complication, major bleeding, and myocardial infarction. Pooled estimate for 30-day mortality was 5.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.0% to 6.8%; I² = 4%), stroke/TIA was 3.4% (95% CI 2.4% to 4.6%; I² = 0%), new pacemaker implantation was 15.3% (95% CI 10.8% to 19.7%; I² = 72%), AKI was 3.4% (95% CI 1.3% to 6.5%; I² = 58%), major vascular complication was 2.4% (95% CI 1.1% to 3.7%; I² = 46%), major bleeding was 4.3% (95% CI 2.8% to 6.1%; I² = 11%), and myocardial infarction was 1.1% (95% CI 0.4% to 2.0%; I² = 0%). Metaregression was carried out to study the association of effect size with the continuous study-level covariates that included average age, proportion of males, and mean STS score. In this regard, mean STS score showed association with major vascular complications (coefficient: 0.008; p = 0.049). Cumulative meta-analysis carried out showed that there was temporal trend of decreasing incidence of stroke/TIA, major vascular complications, and AKI for transcarotid TAVI. In conclusion, transcarotid access for TAVI is a reasonable choice in patients requiring alternate access to transfemoral route.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with a focus on transcarotid: a review of the current literature

Valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis has undergone a huge paradigm shift in the recent years in terms of procedural details and vascular access site for patients who have poor peripheral access. Carotid artery is one of the more promising access sites which has been proven to provide a good alternative site with comparable outcomes to transfemoral approach. In this manuscript, we will provide a review of the current literature on transaortic, transapical, transaxillary and transcarotid approaches to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) while focusing on the transcarotid approach.