Meta-Analysis Comparing Percutaneous to Surgical Access in Trans-Femoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

SURgical vs. PERcutaneous ACCESS in Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (SU-PER-ACCESS Study)

Background: The transfemoral (TF) approach is the most common route in TAVI, but it is still associated with a risk of bleeding and vascular complications. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between surgical cut-down (SC) and percutaneous (PC) approach. (2) Methods: Between January 2018 and June 2022, 774 patients underwent a transfemoral TAVI procedure. After propensity matching, 323 patients underwent TAVI in each group. (3) Results: In the matched population, 15 patients (4.6%) in the SC group vs. 34 patients in the PC group (11%) experienced minor vascular complications (p = 0.02), while no difference for major vascular complication (1.5% vs. 1.9%) were reported. The rate of minor bleeding events was higher in the percutaneous group (11% vs. 3.1%, p <.001). The SC group experienced a higher rate of non-vascular-related access complications (minor 8% vs. 1.2%; major 2.2% vs. 1.2%; p < 0.001). (4) Conclusions: SC for TF-TAVI did not alter the mortality rate at 30 days and was associated with reduced minor vascular complication and bleeding. PC showed a lower rate of non-vascular-related access complications and a lower length of stay. The specific approach should be tailored to the patient's clinical characteristics.

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.

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing Manta device and Perclose device for closure of large bore arterial access

Data comparing MANTA device with Perclose device for large bore arterial access closure is limited. We performed meta-analysis to compare safety and efficacy of the two devices in large (⩾14 Fr sheath) arteriotomy closure post-TAVR. Relevant studies were identified via PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases until June, 2022. Data was analyzed using random effect model to calculate relative odds of VARC-2 defined access-site complications and short-term (in-hospital or 30-day) mortality. A total of 12 studies (2 RCT and 10 observational studies) comprising 2339 patients were included. The odds of major vascular complications (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.51-1.92; p = 0.98); life threatening and major bleeding (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45-1.33; p = 0.35); minor vascular complications (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.63-2.99; p = 0.43); minor bleeding (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.57-1.56; p = 0.82); device failure (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49-1.11; p = 0.14); hematoma formation (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.33-1.75; p = 0.52); dissection, stenosis, occlusion, or pseudoaneurysm (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.71-1.62; p = 0.73) and short-term mortality (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.55-1.84; p = 0.98) between both devices were similar. MANTA device has a similar efficacy and safety profile compared to Perclose device.

Percutaneous Cannulation of Femoral Vessels in Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Despite the recent trend of access miniaturization in minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) surgical "cut down (CD)" for femoral cannulation remains the standard at many centers. Percutaneous vascular closure (PVC) devices have recently been introduced for minimizing invasiveness during interventional diagnostic and therapy. This report summarizes the initial experience with this new approach in the setting of MICS, with a special focus on safety and advantages.

METHODS

Percutaneous cannulation with a standard protocol including preoperative computer tomography imaging and intraoperative point-of-care ultrasound guidance was performed in 93 consecutive patients from September 2018 until February 2020, while conventional "CD" procedure performed in 218 patients in the previous period. We analyzed patients' characteristics and compared access site complications of PVC group versus conventional "CD" group.

RESULTS

As far as operative/postoperative outcome, the duration of intensive care unit stay as well as hospital stay was statistically shorter in PVC compared with CD (CD vs. PVC: 2.74 ± 3.83 vs. 2.16 ± 2.01 days, p < 0.01, 16.7 ± 8.75 vs. 13.0 ± 4.96 days, p < 0.001, respectively). Further, we found no femoral infection or lymphocele in the PVC group, whereas 4 cases of wound complications were observed in the CD group.

CONCLUSION

According to our results, percutaneous closure system for femoral vessels in MICS seems to be beneficial with the assist of preoperative computed tomography and intraoperative Doppler guidance.

Single femoral artery access is safe and feasible during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a propensity score matched analysis

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) potentially may be significantly simplified by using the single artery access (SA) technique, which does not require a secondary artery access. Nevertheless, the safety and efficacy of this technique remains unclear. Our goal was to determine if single artery access TAVR (without upgrading the sheath size) is a feasible, minimally invasive procedure.

Methods

Patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR via the femoral artery were consecutively enrolled in this study. Eligible individuals were divided into 2 groups: the SA group and the dual artery access (DA) group. The primary end point was device success (defined by the valve academic research consortium 3, VARC 3). A 6-month follow-up and propensity score matching analyses were performed.

Results

After propensity score matching analysis, a total of 130 patients were included: 65 in the SA group and 65 in the DA group. The SA procedure achieved similar device success (95.4% vs. 87.7%; P = 0.115) compared with the DA procedure. The SA procedure shortened the operating time (102 min vs. 125 min; P = 0.001) but did not increase the x-ray time or dose. Both a 20 Fr and a 22 Fr sheath (without upgrading the sheath size) could be used for the SA procedure. There was no major vascular complication occurred in both groups. The incidence of minor main vascular and access complications in the SA group was comparable to those of the DA procedure (0.0% vs. 3.1%; P = 0.156).

Conclusions

The SA access procedure is a promising minimally invasive TAVR technique with a low incidence of vascular complications and a high incidence of device success. It is safe and possibly applicable in all TAVR procedures.

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.

A Case of Difficult Arterial Cannulation: Is Intra-Arterial Blood Pressure Monitoring an Absolute Requirement for Paediatric Liver Transplantation?

Invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring is the standard of practice in terms of intraoperative blood pressure surveillance during liver transplantation. While this is an ideal, achieving reliable arterial access can be extremely challenging in the paediatric and neonatal population, repeated attempts at arterial cannulation are not without risk and alternative best practice means of haemodynamic monitoring are not clearly established. We describe a case of paediatric liver transplantation in a 3.9 kg infant that was complicated by difficult arterial cannulation, and we suggest that, when reasonable attempts to achieve intra-arterial access have failed, it is safe to proceed with paediatric liver transplantation with non-invasive blood pressure monitoring at 2 min intervals throughout the case and 1 min intervals at reperfusion. We recognise the unique technical challenges in paediatric liver transplant anaesthesia, and we advocate for the establishment of formal clinical training competencies in line with adult practice recommendations. We recommend the use of the Seldinger technique under ultrasound guidance as a first-line approach when difficult arterial cannulation is anticipated, and we discuss techniques for alternative approaches. We suggest that additional alternative means of haemodynamic monitoring should be considered when arterial access cannot be established; however, as no method demonstrates absolute superiority, one or a combination of techniques should be considered, depending on local availability and expertise.

Clinical outcomes of MANTA vs suture-based vascular closure devices after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: An updated meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A recently published randomized control trial showed different results with suture-based vascular closure device (VCD) than plug-based VCD in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The learning curve for MANTA device is steep, while the learning curve for suture based VCD is shallow as the devices are quite different. In this meta-analysis, we have compared suture-based (ProGlide and Prostar XL) vs plug-based VCDs (MANTA).

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of all published studies (using PubMed/Medline and Cochrane databases) reporting the clinical outcome of plug-based vs suture-based VCDs in transfemoral TAVR patients.

RESULTS

We included nine studies with a total of 2865 patients (plug-based n = 1631, suture-based n = 1234). There was no significant difference in primary outcome of all bleeding when using plug-based as opposed to suture-based VCDs (RR 1.14 [0.62-2.06] I2 = 72%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of secondary outcomes between two groups including major life threatening bleeding (RR 1.16 [0.38-3.58] I2 = 65%), major vascular complications (RR 0.84 [0.35-2.00] I2 = 55%), minor vascular complications (RR 1.05 [0.56-1.95] I2 = 42%), pseudo aneurysm (RR 1.84 [0.11-29.98] I2 = 44%), stenosis-dissection (RR 0.98 [0.66-1.47] I2 = 0%), VCD failure (RR 1.71 [0.96-3.04] I2 = 0%), and blood transfusion (RR 1.01 [0.38-2.71], I2 = 61%).

CONCLUSION

Large bore arteriotomy closure with plug-based VCD was not superior to suture-based VCDs in this transfemoral TAVR population. There was very frequent use of secondary VCDs in suture-based VCD group which is not practical when using MANTA. Additional high-powered studies are required to determine the safety and efficacy of MANTA device.

Vascular management during transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), as an alternative to open heart surgery, has been established as the standard therapy for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. Vascular access management, the first step in a TAVR procedure, should be managed properly. Moreover, the transfemoral and alternatives such as the transaxillary/subclavian, transcarotid, transapical, and transcaval approaches are considered access routes during TAVR. More than 90% of cases can be treated via the transfemoral approach in the current TAVR era, whereas other approaches should be considered in patients in whom the transfemoral approach is not suitable. Vascular complications regardless of access route differences are a specific issue of TAVR caused by the use of large sheaths. With the increased number of TAVR cases, we must manage vascular complications and decrease the morbidity and mortality rates associated with TAVR procedures. Thus, this study aimed to review the vascular complications during TAVR and summarize their prognosis, prevention, and adequate management.

The effect of percutaneouS vs. cutdoWn accEss in patients after Endovascular aorTic repair (SWEET): Study protocol for a single-blind, single-center, randomized controlled trial

Background

Endovascular abdominal aortic repair (EVAR) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) have become the first-line treatment for aortic diseases, but current evidence is uncertain regarding whether a percutaneous approach has better outcomes than cutdown access, especially for patient-centered outcomes (PCOs). This study is designed to compare these outcomes of percutaneous access vs. cutdown access after endovascular aortic repair.

Method

The SWEET study is a randomized, controlled, single-blind, single-center non-inferiority trial with two parallel groups in two cohorts respectively. After eligibility screening, subjects who meet the inclusion criteria will be divided into Cohort EVAR or Cohort TEVAR according to clinic interviews. And then participants in two cohorts will be randomly allocated to either intervention groups receiving percutaneous access endovascular repair or controlled groups receiving cutdown access endovascular repair separately. Primary clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) is access-related complication, and primary patient-centered outcome (PCO) is time back to normal life. Follow-up will be conducted at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months postoperatively.

Discussion

The choice of either percutaneous or cutdown access may not greatly affect the success of EVAR or TEVAR procedures, but can influence the quality of life and patient-centered experience. Given the very low evidence for ClinROs and few data for PCOs, comparison of the percutaneous vs. cutdown access EVAR and TEVAR is essential for both patient-centered care and clinical decision making in endovascular aortic repair.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2100053161 (registered on 13th November, 2021).

Vascular Complications in TAVR: Incidence, Clinical Impact, and Management

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has replaced surgical aortic valve replacement as the new gold standard in elderly patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. However, alongside this novel approach, new complications emerged that require swift diagnosis and adequate management. Vascular access marks the first step in a TAVR procedure. There are several possible access sites available for TAVR, including the transfemoral approach as well as transaxillary/subclavian, transcarotid, transapical, and transcaval. Most cases are primarily performed through a transfemoral approach, while other access routes are mainly conducted in patients not suitable for transfemoral TAVR. As vascular access is achieved primarily by large bore sheaths, vascular complications are one of the major concerns during TAVR. With rising numbers of TAVR being performed, the focus on prevention and successful management of vascular complications will be of paramount importance to lower morbidity and mortality of the procedures. Herein, we aimed to review the most common vascular complications associated with TAVR and summarize their diagnosis, management, and prevention of vascular complications in TAVR.

2006 to 2019 Story; percutaneously implantable aortic valve prototypes

Aims

A review was conducted on the composition, advantages and limitations of available aortic valve prototypes to create an ideal valve for percutaneous implantation.

Patients

Patients with multiple comorbidities who cannot withstand the risks of open cardiac surgery.

Methodology

The search was performed using online databases and textbooks. Articles were excluded based on specific criterion.

Results

Ten prototypes created between 2006 and 2019 were found and reviewed. The prototypes had a set of advantages and limitations with their characteristics coinciding at times.

Conclusions

The ideal percutaneously implantable aortic valve should have minimum coaptation height, zero folds in the leaflets, minimum valve height, minimum leaflet flexion and three leaflets. It can be composed of biological or synthetic material, as long as it provides minimal risk of thrombosis. However, more studies are needed to ensure other ideal parameters.