Access Options for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Unfavorable Aortoiliofemoral Anatomy

Ten-Year Experience with a Transapical Approach for Transcatheter Aortic and Mitral Valve Implantation

BACKGROUND

The transfemoral approach represents the optimal access for TAVI due to its low invasiveness; however, up to 10-15% of TAVI candidates are considered unsuitable for femoral access because of significant peripheral vascular disease and need alternative access.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective observational study including all consecutive adult patients undergoing transcatheter procedures through a TA approach from March 2015 to April 2024.

RESULTS

213 patients underwent transcatheter aortic or mitral valve implantation through a TA approach and were enrolled in this study. The mean age of the patients was 79.5 ± 5.7 years, and 54% of the patients were males. The mean Euroscore II was 7.9 ± 6.4%. One-third of the patients had previous cardiac surgery. The overall mean survival time was 5.3 ± 0.3 years. Nine (4%) patients developed infective endocarditis (IE) during the follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The transapical approach for transcatheter procedures is a safe and effective procedure for patients unsuitable for TF access with low periprocedural mortality and a low rate of post-procedural complications when performed by experienced surgeons and cardiologists.

Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a VARC-HBR consensus document

The identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are of major importance, but the lack of standardised definitions is challenging for trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Valve Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (VARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organisations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from Europe, the USA, and Asia, with a major focus on TAVI-related bleeding. VARC-HBR is an initiative of the CERC (Cardiovascular European Research Center), aiming to develop a consensus definition of TAVI patients at HBR, based on a systematic review of the available evidence, to provide consistency for future clinical trials, clinical decision-making, and regulatory review. This document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of HBR evaluating the safety and effectiveness of procedures, devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing TAVI..

Intravascular Lithotripsy-Assisted Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients with Severe Iliofemoral Calcifications: Expanding Transfemoral Indications

(1) Background: Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the standard treatment for most patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Intravascular lithotripsy may facilitate transfemoral TAVI (IVL-TAVI) even in patients with severely calcified iliofemoral disease. We assessed technical aspects and clinical outcomes of this novel approach compared to alternative transaxillary access (TAX-TAVI). (2) Methods: IVL-TAVI was performed for severe iliofemoral calcifications precluding standard transfemoral access in 30 patients from 2019 to 2022 at a single academic heart center. IVL was performed as part of the TAVI procedure in all cases. Results were compared to a control group of 44 TAX-TAVI procedures performed for the same indication from 2016 to 2021. The safety outcome was a composite of all-cause death, stroke, access-related bleeding ≥ type 2 within 24 h and major vascular access site complications at 30 days. The efficacy outcome was defined as a technical success according to VARC-3. (3) Results: Median age was 78.2 [74.3, 82.6] years, 45.9% were female and mean STS-PROM was 3.6% [2.3, 6.0]. Iliofemoral calcifications were more severe in the IVL-TAVI vs. TAX-TAVI groups (lesion length: 63.0 mm [48.6, 80.3] vs. 48.5 mm [33.1, 68.8]; p = 0.043, severe calcification at target lesion: 90.0% vs. 68.2%; p = 0.047, and median arc calcification 360.0° [297.5, 360.0] vs. 360.0° [180.0, 360.0]; p = 0.033). Technical success was achieved in 93.3% vs. 81.8% (p = 0.187) in IVL- and TAX-TAVI and the safety outcome occurred in 10.0% vs. 31.8% in IVL- and TAX-TAVI (p = 0.047), respectively. (4) Conclusions: IVL-assisted transfemoral TAVI was feasible and safe with favorable outcomes compared to TAX-TAVI. IVL may further expand the number of patients eligible for transfemoral TAVI and may help overcome limitations of an alternative access.

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.

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.

Computed tomography to guide transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Since its introduction in 2022, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the treatment and prognosis of patients with aortic stenosis. Robust clinical trial data and a wealth of scientific evidence support its efficacy and safety. One of the key factors for success of the TAVI procedure is careful preprocedural planning using imaging. Computed tomography (CT) has developed into the standard imaging method for comprehensive patient assessment in this context. Suitability of the femoral and iliac arteries for transfemoral access, exact measurement of aortic annulus size and geometry as the basis for prosthesis selection, quantification of the spatial relationship of the coronary ostia to the aortic annular plane, and identification of optimal fluoroscopic projection angles for the implantation procedure are among the most important information that can be gained from preprocedural CT. Further research is aimed at improving risk stratification, for example, with respect to annular perforation, periprosthetic aortic regurgitation, and need for postprocedural implantation of a permanent pacemaker.

Extrathoracic Against Intrathoracic Vascular Accesses for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

Alternative vascular accesses to transfemoral access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) can be divided into intrathoracic (IT)-transapical and transaortic- and extrathoracic (ET)-transcarotid, transsubclavian, and transaxillary. This study aimed to compare the outcomes and safety of IT and ET accesses for TAVR as alternatives to transfemoral access. A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed by searching PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for all studies comparing IT-TAVR with ET-TAVR published until April 2023. Outcomes included in-hospital or 30-day all-cause mortality (ACM), 1-year ACM, postoperative and 30-day complications. A total of 18 studies with 6,800 IT-TAVR patients and 5,032 ET-TAVR patients were included. IT accesses were associated with a significantly higher risk of in-hospital or 30-day ACM (relative risk 1.99, 95% confidence interval 1.67 to 2.36, p <0.001), and 1-year ACM (relative risk 1.31, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.42, p <0.001). IT-TAVR patients presented more often with postoperative life-threatening bleeding, 30-day new-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter, and 30-day acute kidney injury needing renal replacement therapy. The risks of postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation and significant paravalvular leak were lower with IT-TAVR. ET-TAVR patients were more likely to be directly discharged home. There was no statistically significant difference regarding the 30-day risk of stroke. Compared with ET-TAVR, IT-TAVR was associated with higher risks of in-hospital or 30-day ACM, 1-year ACM and higher risks for some critical postprocedural and 30-day complications. Our results suggest that ET-TAVR could be considered as the first-choice alternative approach when transfemoral access is contraindicated.

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.

Trends and Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease: Insights From the National Readmissions Database

Due to shared risk factors, many patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) also have concomitant peripheral arterial disease (PAD). The readmission rates and long term clinical outcomes of these patients following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in a large sample has not been well defined. The National Readmissions Database (NRD) (2015-2019) was used to identify patients undergoing TAVI. TAVI in patients with PAD was compared with those without PAD using a propensity score matched (PSM) analysis to obtain adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of net adverse clinical events (NACE), and its components. A total of 189,216 patients were identified, of which 14,925 patients (7386 with PAD, 7539 without PAD) were selected for adjusted analysis. Using PSM, patients with PAD undergoing TAVI had significantly higher in-hospital adjusted odds of NACE (aOR 1.60, 95% CI 1.36-1.88), and mortality (aOR 4.10, 95% CI 2.88-5.83). However, rates of other in-hospital peri procedural complications (stroke, major bleeding, paravalvular leak, cardiogenic shock) were not significantly different. There was no significant difference in the incidence of NACE, mortality, or other complications between the 2 groups at 30- and 180 days follow-up. Patients with PAD undergoing TAVI have an increased risk of mortality and NACE during the periprocedural period. However, following discharge, there was no statistically significant difference in 30 days and 6 month outcomes of TAVI in this population compared to those without significant PAD.

Transapical TAVI in chronic type A dissection

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been a routine procedure for quite some years. Advancements in technology and experience have enabled its use in even more challenging anatomies.

Case report

An 83-year-old female patient with severe aortic pathology due to chronic type A dissection after supracoronary ascending aortic repair was suffering from progressive dyspnea and recurrent cardiac decompensations due to severe aortic stenosis. She was successfully treated with a transapical TAVI procedure by our interdisciplinary heart team.

Conclusion

Transapical TAVI is a good alternative for overcoming severe aortic pathology when treating aortic stenosis.

Peripheral intravascular lithotripsy for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a multicentre observational study

BACKGROUND

The presence of severe calcific atherosclerosis at the iliofemoral axis may preclude transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) by the transfemoral (TF) approach. Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) is a novel technology that fractures intimal/medial calcium and increases vessel compliance allowing TF TAVI in selected patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD).

AIMS

The aim of this study was to report on the safety and efficacy of IVL-assisted TF TAVI in an all-comers population.

METHODS

Clinical, imaging and procedural data on all consecutive patients treated by IVL-assisted TF TAVI in six high-volume European centres (2018-2020) were collected in this prospective, real-world, multicentre registry.

RESULTS

IVL-assisted TF TAVI was performed in 108 patients, increasing from 2.4% to 6.5% of all TAVI from 2018 to 2020, respectively. The target lesion was most often localised at the common and/or external iliac artery (93.5% of cases; average TL-MLD 4.6±0.9 mm with 318 degrees of calcium arc). Transfemoral aortic valve delivery was successful in 100% of cases; final procedural success in 98.2% (two conversions to cardiac open surgery for annular rupture and valve migration). Complications of the IVL-treated segments consisted of 1 perforation and 3 major dissections requiring stent implantation (2 covered stents and 2 BMS). Access-site-related complications included 3 major bleedings. Three in-hospital deaths were recorded (2.8%, 1 failed surgical conversion after annular rupture, 1 cardiac arrest after initial valvuloplasty, 1 late hyperkalaemia in renal dysfunction).

CONCLUSIONS

IVL-assisted TF TAVI proved to be a safe and effective approach, which helps to expand the indications for TF TAVI in patients with severe calcific PAD. However, these patients continue to have a higher-than-average incidence of periprocedural complications.

Network meta-analysis comparing the short and long-term outcomes of alternative access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Several studies have pair-wise compared access sites for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) but pooled estimate of overall comparative efficacy and safety outcomes are not well known. We sought to compare short- and long-term outcomes following various alternative access routes for TAVR.

METHODS

Thirty-four studies with a pooled sample size of 32,756 patients were selected by searching PubMed and Cochrane library databases from inception through 11th June 2021 for patients undergoing TAVR via 1 of 6 different access sites: Transfemoral (TF), Transaortic (TAO), Transapical (TA), Transcarotid (TC), Transaxillary/Subclavian (TSA), and Transcaval (TCV). Data were extracted to conduct a frequentist network meta-analysis with a random-effects model using TF access as a reference group.

RESULTS

Compared with TF, both TAO [RR 1.91, 95% CI (1.46-2.50)] and TA access [RR 2.12, 95% CI (1.84-2.46)] were associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality. No significant difference was observed for stroke, myocardial infarction, major bleeding, conversion to open surgery, and major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events at 30 days between different accesses. Major vascular complications were lower in TA [RR 0.43, (95% CI, 0.28-0.67)] and TC [RR 0.51, 95% CI (0.35-0.73)] access compared to TF. The 1-year mortality was higher in TAO [RR of 1.35, (95% CI, 1.01-1.81)] and TA [RR 1.44, (95% CI, 1.14-1.81)] groups.

CONCLUSION

Non-thoracic alternative access site utilization for TAVR implantation (TC, TSA and TCV) is associated with outcomes similar to conventional TF access. Thoracic TAVR access (TAO and TA) translates into increased short and long-term mortality.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients Who Cannot Undergo Transfemoral Access

INTRODUCTION

 Though transfemoral (TF) access has emerged as a gold standard access for patients with aortic stenosis who undergo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), there has been no study that has characterized patients who cannot undergo TF access in detail. We aim to evaluate the contraindications for TF access, their incidence, classify them, and provide the outcomes of patients who failed to be TF candidates.

METHODS

 From 925 patients who underwent TAVI between February 2014 and May 2020 at our heart center, 130 patients failed to be TF candidates and underwent transapical-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TA-TAVI). In this study, we included all those patients who failed to be TF candidates and underwent TA-TAVI using the third-generation balloon expandable valve (Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve [S3]) (116 patients; STS score 6.07 ± 4.4; age 79.4 ± 7).

RESULTS

 The incidence of patients unsuitable for TF access at our heart center was 14%. We classified this TAVI population into absolute contraindication for TF access n = 84 (72.5%) and increased interventional risk for TF access n = 32 (27.5%). After TA-TAVI of this specific population using S3, the in-hospital mortality and stroke were 1.7 and 1.7%, respectively. The vascular injury rate was 1.7%. We registered no paravalvular leakage ≥2. The pacemaker rate was 7.4%. The mean transvalvular pressure gradient was 8.7 mm Hg.

CONCLUSION

 The incidence of patients who cannot undergo TF access or who are at high interventional risk is considerably high. TA-TAVI, supported with sufficient interventional experience and appropriate valve system, represents an excellent alternative for patients with distinct vasculopathy.

Current Trends in TAVI Access

The optimal approach for Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the transfemoral access but alternative TAVI approaches offer the possibility of valve replacement in patients who are not eligible to the transfemoral route. This review paper intends to compare the current available alternative approaches for TAVI in terms of their safety and efficacy, based on the current literature. The transapical, transaortic, transsubclavian, transcarotid, transcaval and suprasternal approaches have been analyzed. The choice of the alternative approach dependents on local Heart Team expertise, patient specific characteristics, access specific characteristics and the need or not for general anesthesia. More studies are needed to investigate the impact of each individual approach on long-term outcomes.

Carotid versus femoral access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a propensity score inverse probability weighting study

OBJECTIVES

The transcarotid (TC) approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is potentially an optimal alternative to the transfemoral (TF) approach. Our goal was to compare the safety and efficacy of TC- and TF-TAVI.

METHODS

Patients who underwent TF-TAVI or TC-TAVI in the prospectively collected FRANCE TAVI registry between January 2013 and December 2015 were compared. Propensity score inverse probability weighting methods were employed to minimize the impact of bias related to non-random treatment assignment.

RESULTS

Of the 11 033 patients included in the current study, 10 598 (96%) underwent a TF-TAVI and 435 (4.1%) had a TC-TAVI. Patients in the TC-TAVI access group presented with a higher risk profile but were significantly younger. There were no differences in the perioperative and 2-year mortality rates after adjustment [odds ratio (OR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-1.68; P = 0.99 and hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.7-1.35; P = 0.83). TC-TAVI was associated with a significant risk of stroke (OR 2.42, 95% CI 2.01-2.92; P < 0.001), ST-elevation myocardial infarction (OR 7.32, 95% CI 3.87-13.87; P < 0.001), infections (OR 2.36, 95% CI 2.04-2.71; P < 0.001), bleeding (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.76-2.29; P < 0.001), renal failure (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.90-2.60; P < 0.001) and need for dialysis (OR 2.36, 95% CI 2.01-2.76, P < 0.001). Conversely, TC-TAVI was not confirmed as a risk factor for pacemaker implantation after adjustment (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96-1.15; P < 0.28) and was a protective factor for vascular complications (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.32-0.43; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

TC-TAVI is a safe procedure compared to TF-TAVI, although it holds an increased risk of perioperative complications. It should be considered in case of non-femoral peripheral access as the second access choice, to increase the overall safety of TAVI procedures.

Femoral Versus Nonfemoral Subclavian/Carotid Arterial Access Route for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Some concerns remain regarding the safety of transcarotid and transsubclavian approaches for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. We aimed to compare the risk of 30‐day complications and death in transcarotid/transsubclavian versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement recipients.

Methods and Results

Data from 20 studies, including 79 426 patients (16 studies) and 3992 patients (4 studies) for the evaluation of the unadjusted and adjusted impact of the arterial approach were sourced, respectively. The use of a transcarotid/transsubclavian approach was associated with an increased risk of stroke when using unadjusted data (risk ratio [RR], 2.28; 95% CI, 1.90–2.72) as well as adjusted data (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.05–2.22). The pooled results deriving from unadjusted data showed an increased risk of 30‐day death (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.22–1.74) and bleeding (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.18–1.97) in patients receiving transcatheter aortic valve replacement through a transcarotid/transsubclavian access (compared with the transfemoral group), but the associations between the arterial access and death (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.89–1.69), bleeding (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.68–1.61) were no longer significant when using adjusted data. No significant effect of the arterial access on vascular complication was observed in unadjusted (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66–1.06) and adjusted (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.53–1.17) analyses.

Conclusions

Transcarotid and transsubclavian approaches for transcatheter aortic valve replacement were associated with an increased risk of stroke compared with the transfemoral approach. However, these nonfemoral arterial alternative accesses were not associated with an increased risk of 30‐day death, bleeding, or vascular complication when taking into account the confounding factors.

Percutaneous Transfemoral TAVR With Direct Puncture and Successful Closure of Aortobifemoral Bypass Graft

Two successful cases of percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with previous aortobifemoral bypass graft surgery are presented. Both cases demonstrate feasibility of this strategy after careful preprocedural planning and suggest transfemoral TAVR can also be considered for patients when alternative access and/or general anaesthesia is excluded.

Simultaneous thoracic aortic endovascular graft and transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a patient with a descending aortic thrombus

Severe descending thoracic and abdominal aortic pathology can deter consideration of transfemoral (TF) access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in adults with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) and may lead to utilization of alternative access sites. We report a case of an 88-year-old frail woman with severe symptomatic AS referred for TAVR with demonstration of a large thrombus in the descending thoracic aorta immediately distal to the left subclavian artery. Given concerns of thrombus embolization with femoral advancement of the transcatheter valve, coverage with a thoracic aortic endograft was planned immediately prior to the TAVR.

A Review of Alternative Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

With the advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), appropriately selected intermediate-, high-, and extreme-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) are now offered a less invasive option compared to conventional surgery. In contemporary practice, TAVR is performed predominantly via a transfemoral arterial approach, whereby a transcatheter heart valve (THV) is delivered in a retrograde fashion through the iliofemoral arterial system and thoraco-abdominal aorta, into the native aortic valve annulus. While the majority of patients possess suitable anatomy for transfemoral arterial access, there is a subset of patients with extensive peripheral vascular disease that precludes this traditional approach to TAVR. Fortunately, innovation in the field of structural heart disease has led to the refinement of alternative access options for THV delivery. Selection of the most appropriate route of therapy mandates a careful consideration of multiple factors, including patient anatomy, technical feasibility, and equipment specifications. Furthermore, understanding the risks conferred by each access site for valve delivery-notably stroke, vascular injury, and major bleeding-is of paramount importance when selecting the approach that will best optimize the outcome for an individual. In this review, we provide a comprehensive summary of alternative approaches to transfemoral arterial TAVR as well as the available outcome data supporting each of these various techniques.