Percutaneous access versus surgical cut down for TAVR: Where do we go from here?

Non-femoral focused transaxillary access in TAVI: GARY data analysis and future trends

BACKGROUND

In patients not suitable for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), several access strategies can be chosen.

AIM

To evaluate the use and patient outcomes of transaxillary (TAx), transapical (TA), and transaortic (TAo) as alternative access for TAVI in Germany; to further evaluate surgical cutdown vs. percutaneous TAx access.

METHODS

All patients entered the German Aortic Valve Registry (GARY) between 2011 and 2019 who underwent non-transfemoral TAVI were included in this analysis. Patients with TA, TAo, or TAx TAVI were compared using a weighted propensity score model. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis was performed for TAx regarding the percutaneous or surgical cutdown approach.

RESULTS

Overall, 9686 patients received a non-transfemoral access. A total of 8918 patients (92.1%) underwent TA, 398 (4.1%) TAo, and 370 (3.8%) TAx approaches. Within the TAx subgroup, 141 patients (38.1%) received subclavian cutdown, while 200 (54.1%) underwent a percutaneous approach. The TA patients had a significantly lower 30-day survival than TAx patients (TA 90.92% vs. TAx 95.59%, p = 0.006; TAo 92.22% vs. TAx 95.59%, p = 0.102). Comparing percutaneous and cutdown TAx approaches, no significant differences were seen. However, more vascular complications occurred (TA 1.8%, TAo 2.4%, TAx 12.2%; p < .001), and the hospital length of stay was shorter (TA 12.9 days, TAo 14.1 days, TAx 12 days; p < .001) after TAx access.

CONCLUSION

It may be reasonable to consider TAx access first in patients not suitable for TF-TAVI, because the 30-day survival was higher compared with TA access and the 1-year survival was higher compared with TAo access. It remains important for the heart teams to offer alternative access modalities for patients not amenable to the standard TF-TAVI approaches.

Comparison of manual compression, Z-stitch, and suture-mediated vascular closure device techniques in dogs undergoing percutaneous transvenous intervention

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

Manual compression has been standard of care for maintaining hemostasis after percutaneous endovascular intervention, but can be time-consuming and associated with vascular complications. Alternative closure methods include the figure-of-eight suture (Z-stitch) and vascular closure device (VCD) techniques. We hypothesized that compared to manual compression, Z-stitch and VCD would significantly reduce time-to-hemostasis after transvenous access, and the proportion of dogs with vascular patency would not differ significantly among treatments.

ANIMALS

Forty-six client-owned dogs undergoing percutaneous transvenous interventional procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Dogs with vessel diameter <5 mm were randomized to undergo manual compression or Z-stitch, while those with vessel diameter ≥5 mm were randomized to undergo manual compression, Z-stitch, or VCD. Time-to-hemostasis, bleeding scores, presence of vascular patency one day and two to three months post-procedure, and complications were recorded. Data are presented as median (95% confidence interval).

RESULTS

In all 46 dogs, the right external jugular vein was used. Time-to-hemostasis was significantly shorter in the Z-stitch (2.1 [1.8-2.9] minutes) compared to VCD (8.6 [6.1-11.8] minutes; P<0.001) and manual compression (10.0 [10.0-20.0] minutes; P<0.001) groups. Time-to-hemostasis was significantly shorter in the VCD vs. manual compression (P=0.027) group. Bleeding scores were significantly greater at 5 and 10 min (P<0.001 and 0.013, respectively) in manual compression, compared to Z-stitch group. There was no difference in the proportion of dogs with vascular patency between groups (P=0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

Z-stitch and VCD are effective venous hemostasis methods after percutaneous transvenous intervention, with Z-stitch providing the most rapid time-to-hemostasis. Both Z-stitch and VCD techniques have low complication rates and effectively maintain vascular patency.

Surgical Versus Interventional Treatment of Major Access Site Complications During Transfemoral TAVI Procedures at a Large Volume Center

PURPOSE

Access-related vascular complications in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) can be treated endovascularly or surgically. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of endovascular treatment compared with surgical repair for access-related vascular complications.

METHODS

This retrospective study was performed from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020. All transfemorally treated TAVI patients in whom a surgical or endovascular treatment for an access site complication was needed were included. The primary outcome was the need for any related vascular re-operation.

RESULTS

In total, 1219 transfemoral TAVI procedures were conducted during the study period. 19 patients suffered an access complication requiring endovascular treatment, while 54 patients required surgical repair. No differences were seen with regard to re-operations (endovascular 15.8% vs surgical 14.8%; p=0.919), wound infections (endovascular 0% vs surgical. 11.1%; p=0.129), and wound healing disorders (endovascular 15.8% vs surgical 29.6%; p=0.237). Patients undergoing endovascular treatment were discharged earlier (endovascular 11.2 vs surgical 14.9 days; p=0.028). After surgical repair, patients received significantly more blood transfusions than endovascularly treated patients (endovascular 1.00 vs surgical 3.1 red blood cell concentrate bags; p<0.001). No differences were found regarding the new onset of walking pain, rest pain, and ischemic ulcers during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective cohort, endovascular treatment of access-related vascular complications of transfemoral TAVI procedures was safe and feasible. During the hospital stay, endovascularly treated patients received fewer blood transfusions and were discharged faster than surgically treated patients. No differences regarding clinical outcomes and re-intervention rates were seen during the follow-up.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Given the in this retrospective study demonstrated safety and feasibility of endovascular treatment for major access-related vascular complications, along with the in-hospital benefits and absence of follow-up disadvantages compared to surgical treatment, endovascular treatment should be considered in cases of major access-related vascular complications in transfemoral TAVI patients.

The Impact of Local vs. General Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Surgery

OBJECTIVE

General anesthesia is associated with inherent risks that can be avoided by the use of lesser invasive anesthetic strategies. We hypothesize that examine and compare the use of local or regional anesthesia (LRA to general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

METHODS

Patients undergoing TEVAR between 2010-2020 in the Vascular Quality Initiative were analyzed. Exclusion criteria included receipt of branched or physician modified endografts and devices extending distally beyond Zone 5. Patients were categorized as receiving LRA or GA. Center volume was reported by quartile according to annualized TEVAR volume and operative outcomes were compared using appropriate frequentists tests. Univariable and multivariable regression models for anesthesia type and operative outcomes were created to compare unadjusted and adjusted rates of each outcome. Long-term survival was estimated using a Kaplan-Meier survival estimator, while adjusted survival analysis was performed using a Cox proportional-hazards model.

RESULTS

Of the 17,099 patients who underwent TEVAR, 7,299 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 3.8% received LRA. There were no significant differences in the annual proportion of patients who received LRA from 2011 to 2020 (p = 0.49, Chi-square test for trend). Only 18.8% of patients who received LRA were treated at the highest quartile volume centers. Patients who received LRA were older and more comorbid compared to those who received GA. There were no differences in in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.38, p = 0.44) or composite of any complication (OR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.14, p = 0.22) between patients who received LRA compared to GA. This also applied to patients presenting with rupture. Receipt of LRA was associated with lower odds of post-operative congestive heart failure (OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.89, p = 0.01) as well as decreased length of ICU (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.72, p < 0.01) and hospital length of stay (OR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.84, p < 0.01). LRA was not associated with decreased long-term survival compared to GA (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25, p = 0.72).

CONCLUSION

Despite a greater number of baseline comorbidities, patients undergoing TEVAR with LRA experienced shorter ICU and post-operative lengths of stay, with similar operative outcomes and long-term survival compared to patients who received GA.. Similar findings were found amongst the rupture cohort. LRA should be considered more frequently in select patients undergoing TEVAR.

Proper Selection Does Make the Difference: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of Percutaneous and Surgical Cut-Down Transfemoral TAVR

Background. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established technique to treat severe symptomatic aortic stenosis patients with a wide range of surgical risk. Currently, the common femoral artery is the first choice as the main access route for the procedure. The objective of this observational study is to report our experience on percutaneous and surgical cut-down transfemoral TAVRs comparing the two approaches. Methods. From January 2014 to January 2019, five hundred eleven consecutive patients underwent TAVR for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. We analyzed only elective transfemoral procedures. After propensity score-matching based on age, sex, EuroSCORE II, mean aortic gradient, and left ventricular ejection fraction, we obtained two homogeneous populations: surgical cut-down (n = 119) and percutaneous (n = 225), which were labeled Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. Results. The main findings were that there were no significant procedural outcome differences between the two groups, but Group 2 patients had a shorter length of hospital stay and were more frequently discharged home. At follow-up, Group 1 patients had lower survival rates. Conclusions. An accurate preoperative assessment of the femoral access is mandatory to achieve satisfactory outcomes with transfemoral TAVRs. Nevertheless, the percutaneous approach allows shorter in-hospital stay and the need for rehabilitation, thus potentially decreasing the costs of the procedure.

Early Outcomes After Percutaneous Closure of Access Site in Transfemoral Transcatheter Valve Implantation Using the Novel Vascular Closure Device Collagen Plug-Based MANTA

A new collagen-based MANTA vascular closure device (VCD) was developed for closing large-bore arteriotomies after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We evaluated safety and feasibility at 30-day follow-up in terms of vascular and bleeding complications and mortality of the collagen-based MANTA VCD compared with the suture-based Prostar XL VCD in a cohort of 366 patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI between January 2015 and April 2018. The MANTA VCD was used in 168 patients and the Prostar XL VCD in 198 patients, with successful closure of 98.8% and 98.5%, respectively. VARC-2 defined as major vascular and bleeding complications was similar in both groups (MANTA vs Prostar XL): 0.6% versus 1.0% (p = 0.661) and 0.6% versus 1.5% (p = 0.102). Minor vascular and bleeding complications, were significantly more frequent (10.7 vs 18.8 %, p = 0.003 and 13.7 vs 19.7%, p = 0.080, respectively) in the Prostar XL cohort. Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 2.7%, without significant difference between the groups (p = 0.278). The MANTA device is a safe and feasible option for vascular access closure in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI.