Transfemoral versus trans-subclavian access in transcatheter aortic valve implantation using self-expandable valve: A propensity-matched comparison

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is unfeasible for 10-15% of patients using the conventional transfemoral approach. Other alternative approaches, such as the subclavian approach, have emerged, with no clear recommendation indicating the superiority of one technique over another.

AIM

To compare the 1-month mortality and postprocedural outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation using a self-expandable valve via transfemoral and subclavian access.

METHODS

This was a retrospective single-centre study including 1496 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation between January 2016 and December 2020 at Clermont-Ferrand University Hospital, France. Propensity score matching was used to compare transfemoral and subclavian access.

RESULTS

After building two propensity score-matched groups of 221 patients each with either access route (total n=442), baseline characteristics were similar. The procedure duration was significantly longer in the subclavian access group (53 [45-64] versus 60 [51-72] minutes; P<0.001), but with a lower amount of contrast agent (138 [118-165] versus 123 [105-150] mL; P<0.001), fluoroscopy time (11.2 [9-14] versus 9.9 [7-12] minutes; P<0.001) and radiation dose (397 [264-620] versus 321 [217-485] mGy; P<0.001). No significant difference was observed concerning 1-month mortality (odds ratio 1.62, 95% confidence interval 0.52-5.03; P=0.39) or periprocedural complications. Follow-up at 1 year confirmed no difference in longer-term mortality (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.52-5.03; P=0.43).

CONCLUSIONS

The subclavian approach provides similar results to the transfemoral approach in terms of mortality, efficacy and safety; it is a reasonable and effective alternative when the reference transfemoral approach is impossible or seems complex.

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.

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.

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.

Comparison of outcomes following transfemoral versus trans-subclavian approach for transcatheter aortic valve Implantation: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The subclavian artery is an alternative access route for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), with a potential advantage in patients unsuitable for traditional access routes such as the femoral artery. This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of the trans-subclavian (TSc) compared to the trans-femoral (TF) approach.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted on two online databases: Embase and Medline. The initial search returned 508 titles. Nine observational studies were included: n = 2938 patients (2382 TF and 556 TSc).

RESULTS

Both TSc and TF groups were comparable for: 30-day mortality (Odds ratio, OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 - 1.16, p = 0.195); in-hospital stroke (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60-1.85, p = 0.859); myocardial infarction (OR 1.97, 95% CI 0.74-5.23, p = 0.176); paravalvular leaks (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.76-1.90, p = 0.439); rates of postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation (OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.92-2.41, p = 0.105); in-hospital bleeding and meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference between access points (OR 3.44, 95% CI 0.35-34.22, p = 0.292). Procedural time was found to be longer in the TSc group (SMD 1.02; 95% CI 0.815-1.219, p < 0.001). Major vascular complications were significantly higher in the TF group (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.94, p = 0.029). Meta regression found no influence of the covariates on the outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Subclavian access is both a safe and feasible alternative access route for TAVI with lower risks of major vascular complications. This study supports the use of subclavian access as a viable alternative in patient groups where transfemoral TAVI is contraindicated.

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.

Atrial septal defect closure in a midget toy poodle

Background

Atrial septal defect (ASD) is a rare congenital cardiac disease, and there have been no reports about the treatment of ASD in midget breed dogs.

Case Description

A 7-month-old female toy poodle weighing 1.4 kg presented with cardiac enlargement. Echocardiography revealed a secundum-type ASD, right ventricular and atrial enlargement, and pulmonary hypertension. Blood flow through the ASD exhibited left-to-right shunting. The dog underwent ASD closure through a hybrid approach, in conjunction with catheter techniques and thoracotomy. Ten months after treatment, cardiac enlargement and pulmonary hypertension were improved.

Conclusion

Even in midget dog breeds, ASD can be corrected through a hybrid approach.