Predicted magnitude of alternate access in the contemporary transcatheter aortic valve replacement era

Minimum-incision transsubclavian transcatheter aortic valve replacement with balloon-expandable valve for dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Dialysis patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) face increased risk and have poorer outcomes than non-dialysis patients. Moreover, TAVR in dialysis patients using an alternative approach is considered extremely risky and little is known about the outcomes. We routinely perform minimum-incision transsubclavian TAVR (MITS-TAVR), which is contraindicated for transfemoral (TF) TAVR. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of MITS-TAVR compared with those of TF-TAVR in dialysis patients.

METHODS

This single-center, observational study included 79 consecutive dialysis patients who underwent MITS-TAVR (MITS group, n = 22) or TF-TAVR (TF group, n = 57) under regional anesthesia.

RESULTS

The rates of peripheral artery disease (MITS vs. TF, 72.7 % vs. 26.3 %; p < 0.01), shaggy aortas (MITS vs. TF, 63.6 % vs. 5.26 %; p < 0.01), and tortuous aortas (MITS vs. TF, 13.6 % vs. 1.75 %; p = 0.031) were significantly higher in the MITS group. The 30-day mortality was 2.53 % and comparable between the two groups (MITS vs. TF, 4.54 % vs. 1.75 %; p = 0.479). In the MITS group, 14 patients had ipsilateral dialysis fistulas, and three patients had patent in situ ipsilateral internal thoracic artery grafts; however, no vascular complications were observed. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for the two groups showed no significant difference in the survival rate (at 2 years; MITS vs. TF, 77.3 % vs. 68.8 %; p = 0.840) and freedom from cardiovascular mortality (at 2 years; MITS vs. TF, 90.9 % vs. 96.5 %; p = 0.898). The multivariable Cox proportional hazard model also indicated that survival in the MITS group was not significantly different from that in the TF group (hazard ratio 1.48; 95 % confidence interval, 0.77-2.85, p = 0.244). The patency rate of ipsilateral dialysis fistula was 100 % during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The outcome of MITS-TAVR was comparable to that of TF-TAVR in dialysis patients, despite the higher risk of patient characteristics.

Alternative Access for TAVR: Choosing the Right Pathway

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an alternative treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis regardless of surgical risk, particularly in those with a high and prohibitive risk. Since the advent of TAVR, transfemoral access has been the standard of care. However, given comorbidities and anatomical limitations, a proportion of patients are not good candidates for a transfemoral approach. Alternative access, including transapical, transaortic, transaxillary, transsubclavian, transcarotid, and transcaval, can be considered. Each alternative access has advantages and disadvantages, so the vascular route should be tailored to the patient's characteristics. However, there is no standardized algorithm when choosing the optimal alternative vascular access. In this review, we analyzed the evolution and current evidence for the most common alternative access for TAVR and proposed an algorithm for choosing the optimal vascular access in this patient population.

Transcarotid versus transaxillary access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement with a self-expanding valve: A propensity-matched analysis

Transaxillary access has been the most frequently used nonfemoral access route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding valve. Use of transcarotid TAVR is increasing; however, comparative data on these methods are limited. We compared outcomes following transcarotid or transaxillary TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular valve.

Methods

The Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry was queried for TAVR procedures using transaxillary and transcarotid access between July 2015 and June 2021. Patients received a self-expanding Evolut R, PRO, or PRO + valve (Medtronic) and had 1-year follow-up. Thirty-day and 1-year outcomes were compared in transcarotid and transaxillary groups after 1:2 propensity score-matching. Multivariable regression models were fitted to identify predictors of key end points.

Results

The propensity score-matched cohort included 576 patients receiving transcarotid and 1142 receiving transaxillary access. Median procedure time (99 vs 118 minutes; P < .001) and hospital stay (2 vs 3 days; P < .001) were shorter with transcarotid versus transaxillary access. At 30 days, patients with transcarotid access had similar mortality (Kaplan-Meier estimates 3.7% vs 4.3%, P = .57) but significantly lower stroke (3.1% vs 5.9%; P = .017) and mortality or stroke (6.0% vs 8.9%; P = .033) compared with patients receiving transaxillary access. Similar differences were observed at 1 year. Transaxillary access was associated with increased risk of 30-day stroke (hazard ratio, 2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-3.58) by multivariable regression analysis.

Conclusions

Transcarotid versus transaxillary access for TAVR using a self-expanding valve is associated with procedural benefits and significantly lower stroke and mortality or stroke at 30 days. In patients with unsuitable femoral anatomy, transcarotid access may be the preferred delivery route for self-expanding valves.

Iliofemoral artery predilation prior to transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with aortic valve stenosis and advanced peripheral artery disease

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the feasibility and safety of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) of the iliofemoral arteries (IFA) before transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (Tf-TAVI) in patients with advanced peripheral artery disease (PAD).

BACKGROUND

Although Tf-TAVI represents the access of choice, alternative vascular access routes are preferred for patients displaying advanced PAD. PTA of the IFA represents a less invasive option, broadening the spectrum of patients eligible for Tf-TAVI.

METHODS

All patients requiring PTA of the IFA before Tf-TAVI, between 2012 and 2021, were included. Primary efficacy endpoint was the rate of successful transcatheter heart valve (THV) delivery and implantation. Primary safety endpoint was the rate of PTA and access-site-related vascular complications, procedural- and in-hospital complications.

RESULTS

Among 2726 Tf-TAVI procedures, 59 patients required IFA predilation. Successful THV delivery and implantation was achieved in 57 (96.6%) patients, respectively. Sheath placement was achieved in 59 (100%) patients with only one minor dissection and no major vascular complications following iliofemoral PTA. Regarding access site complications, two (3.4%) vessel perforations and one (1.7%) vessel rupture were observed, with eight (13.5%) patients requiring unplanned endovascular interventions. There was one intraprocedural death due to THV-induced vessel laceration, while in-hospital all-cause mortality was 8.5% in the present high-risk patient cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Predilation of IFA is safe and effective in patients with advanced PAD. Careful preprocedural planning is paramount in improving procedural safety and efficacy. This strategy has the potential to broaden the spectrum of patients eligible for Tf-TAVI.

Minimum-incision trans-subclavian transcatheter aortic valve replacement with regional anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Minimum-incision trans-subclavian transcatheter aortic valve replacement (MITS-TAVR) is usually performed in patients who are contraindicated for transfemoral TAVR, under regional anesthesia (RA). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of MITS-TAVR under RA compared to MITS-TAVR under general anesthesia (GA).

METHODS

This single-center observational study included 44 consecutive patients who underwent MITS-TAVR under RA (RA group, n = 19) and GA (GA group, n = 25). RA was achieved using an ultrasound-guided nerve block.

RESULTS

The rates of respiratory disease (RA vs. GA, 36.8 % vs. 4.0 %; p < 0.01) and dialysis (79.0 % vs. 0 %; p < 0.01) were significantly higher in the RA group. STS score was significantly higher in the RA group (RA vs. GA, 10.8 ± 1.06 % vs. 7.87 ± 0.93 %; p < 0.01). Both groups had a 100 % procedural success rate. The two groups showed comparable operation room stay times (RA vs. GA, 160 ± 6.96 min vs. 148 ± 5.90 min; p = 0.058). The mean rate of change in blood pressure, used as an index of hemodynamic stability, was significantly lower in the RA group (RA vs. GA, 19.0 ± 3.4 % vs. 35.5 ± 3.0 %; p < 0.01). No in-hospital deaths occurred in either group. One case of minor dissection occurred in the GA group (RA vs.GA, 0 % vs. 4.0 %, p = 0.378). The intensive care unit stay (RA vs. GA, 0.21 ± 0.11 days vs. 1.24 ± 0.10 days; p < 0.01) and hospital stay (RA vs. GA, 7.00 ± 1.73 days vs. 12.2 ± 1.44 days; p < 0.01) were significantly shorter in the RA group.

CONCLUSIONS

MITS-TAVR under RA is safe and effective and might be a promising alternative approach. It could ensure intraoperative hemodynamic stability and shorten intensive care unit and hospital stays.

Association Between Peripheral Versus Central Access for Alternative Access Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Mortality and Stroke: A Report From the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry

BACKGROUND

In some patients, the alternative access route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is utilized because the conventional transfemoral approach is not felt to be either feasible or optimal. However, accurate prognostication of patient risks is not well established. This study examines the associations between peripheral (transsubclavian/transaxillary, and transcarotid) versus central access (transapical and transaortic) in alternative access TAVR and 30-day and 1-year end points of mortality and stroke for all valve platforms.

METHODS

Using data from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry with linkage to Medicare claims, patients who underwent alternative access TAVR from June 1, 2015 to June 30, 2018 were identified. Adjusted and unadjusted Cox proportional hazards modeling were performed to determine the association between alternate access TAVR site and 30-day and 1-year end points of mortality and stroke.

RESULTS

Of 7187 alternative access TAVR patients, 3725 (52%) had peripheral access and 3462 (48%) had central access. All-cause mortality was significantly lower in peripheral access versus central access group at in-hospital and 1 year (2.9% versus 6.3% and 20.3% versus 26.6%, respectively), but stroke rates were higher (5.0% versus 2.8% and 7.3% versus 5.5%, respectively; all P<0.001). These results persisted after 1-year adjustment (death adjusted hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.62-0.85] and stroke adjusted hazard ratio, 2.92 [95% CI, 2.21-3.85]). When broken down by individual subtypes, compared with transaxillary/subclavian access patients, transapical, and transaortic access patients had higher all-cause mortality but less stroke (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world, contemporary, nationally representative benchmarking study of alternate access TAVR sites, peripheral access was associated with favorable mortality and morbidity outcomes compared with central access, at the expense of higher stroke. These findings may allow for accurate prognostication of risk for patient counseling and decision-making for the heart team with regard to alternative access TAVR.

Alternative Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Comprehensive Review

Transfemoral is the most widely used access to perform transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, alternative access is needed in up to 21% of patients with TAVR because of a myriad of factors. The authors provide a comprehensive review on alternative access for TAVR, discussing the relevant data and providing the pros and cons of each access route.

Evolution of Alternative-access Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Transfemoral access is the most common approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, a subset of patients require alternative access. This study describes the evolution and outcomes of alternative-access TAVR at Cleveland Clinic.

METHODS

From January 2006 to January 2019, 2446 patients underwent TAVR, 414 (17%) through alternative access (247 transapical, 95 transaortic, 56 transaxillary, 2 transcarotid, 10 transiliac, 4 transcaval). Patients undergoing alternative-access TAVR had high preoperative risk. Propensity-matched comparisons were targeted at comparing transfemoral versus transaxillary approaches since 2012.

RESULTS

Over time, the favored alternative-access approach shifted from transapical and transaortic to transaxillary. Pacemaker requirement was similar for alternative-access and transfemoral approaches. Compared with transfemoral access, major vascular injuries were higher in the alternative-access group (12 [2.9%] vs 27 [1.3%], P = .02), but minor vascular injuries were lower (13 [3.1%] vs 198 [9.8%], P < .0001). Non-risk-adjusted 5-year survival was lower in the alternative-access group (45% vs 59%). Compared with intrathoracic approaches (transapical and transaortic), transaxillary access was associated with fewer blood transfusions (12 [21%] vs 176 [51%], P < .0001), less prolonged ventilation (1 [1.8%] vs 38 [11%], P = .03), and shorter length of stay (median, 5 vs 7.5 days, P < .0001). Survival and major morbidity were similar in matched comparisons of the transfemoral and transaxillary approaches. No brachial plexus injuries occurred with transaxillary access.

CONCLUSIONS

The transaxillary approach has emerged as our preferred alternative-access strategy for TAVR. It is associated with superior operative outcomes compared with transthoracic approaches, and results are comparable with those of the transfemoral approach.

Comparison of Deep Sedation and General Anesthesia With an Endotracheal Tube for Transcaval Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Pioneering Institution's Experience

OBJECTIVES

Transcaval transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TC-TAVR) is an alternative approach to transcatheter aortic valve replacement involving deployment of the bioprosthetic valve via a conduit created from the inferior vena cava to the descending aorta in patients for whom the traditional transfemoral approach is not feasible. By analyzing the largest known cohort of TC-TAVR patients, the authors wished to compare hospital length of stay and post-procedure outcomes between patients who underwent the procedure under deep sedation (DS) and patients who underwent general anesthesia with an endotracheal tube.

DESIGN

Retrospective, single-center study.

SETTING

Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, MI.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients undergoing TC-TAVR from 2015 to 2018.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients were included in the analysis, which consisted of 38 under general anesthesia with an endotracheal tube and 41 under DS. The sample was divided into a general anesthesia (GA) group and DS group. There were no significant differences in implant success rate or post-procedure outcomes, including in-hospital mortality (p = 0.999) and major vascular complication rate (p = 0.481), between the two groups. Patients in the GA group stayed a median of 24 hours longer in the intensive care unit (ICU) (p < 0.001) and one day longer in the hospital (p = 0.046) after the procedure compared to patients in the DS group. The median procedure time was significantly lower (135 minutes) in the DS group compared to the GA group (167 minutes, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing TC-TAVR under DS had similar postoperative outcomes and shorter post-procedure hospital and ICU lengths of stay compared to general anesthesia. In the authors' experience, DS is the preferred anesthetic technique for TC-TAVR.

Transcaval Access to the Abdominal Aorta: indications of Interest to Surgeons and a Comprehensive Literature Review

We performed a review of the literature (until August 01, 2019) on the occasion of the first transcaval approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation in our hospital. This review focuses mainly on the indications of this alternative access route to the aorta. It may be useful for vascular surgeons in selected cases, such as the treatment of endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair and thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair. We describe historical aspects of transcaval access to the aorta, experimental studies, available case series and outcomes. Finally, we summarize the most significant technical aspects of this little-known access.

The Fate of Transcaval Access Tracts: 12-Month Results of the Prospective NHLBI Transcaval Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Study

OBJECTIVES

The authors investigated 1-year outcomes after transcaval access and closure for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), using commercially available nitinol cardiac occluders off-label.

BACKGROUND

Transcaval access is a fully percutaneous nonfemoral artery route for TAVR. The intermediate-term fate of transcaval access tracts is not known.

METHODS

The authors performed a prospective, multicenter, independently adjudicated trial of transcaval access, using Amplatzer nitinol cardiac occluders (Abbott Vascular, Minneapolis, Minnesota), among subjects without traditional transthoracic (transapical or transaortic) access options. One-year clinical follow-up included core laboratory analysis of serial abdominal computed tomography (CT).

RESULTS

100 subjects were enrolled. Twelve-month mortality was 29%. After discharge, there were no vascular complications of transcaval access. Among 83 evaluable CT scans after 12 months, 77 of fistulas (93%) were proven occluded, and only 1 was proven patent. Fistula patency was not associated with overall survival (p = 0.37), nor with heart failure admissions (15% if patent vs. 23% if occluded; p = 0.30). There were no cases of occluder fracture or migration or visceral injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Results are reassuring 1 year after transcaval TAVR and closure using permeable nitinol occluders off-label. There were no late major vascular complications. CT demonstrated spontaneous closure of almost all fistulas. Results may be different in a lower-risk cohort, with increased operator experience, and using a dedicated transcaval closure device. (Transcaval Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in People With No Good Options for Aortic Access; NCT02280824).