Transcarotid Versus Subclavian/Axillary Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With SAPIEN 3

Right transaxillary transcatheter aortic valve replacement is comparable to left despite challenges

OBJECTIVES

Transaxillary access is the most popular alternative to transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Although left transaxillary access is generally preferred, right transaxillary transcatheter aortic valve replacement could be challenging because of the opposing axillary artery and aortic curvatures, which may warrant procedural modifications to improve alignment. Our aim is to compare our single center's outcomes for left and right transaxillary access groups and to evaluate procedural modifications for facilitating right transaxillary transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared for consecutive left or right axillary TAVRs performed from 6/2016 to 6/2022 with SAPIEN 3. The effects of our previously reported "flip-n-flex" technique on procedural efficiency and new conduction disturbances were subanalyzed in the right axillary group.

RESULTS

Right and left transaxillary transcatheter aortic valve replacement were performed in 25 (18 with the "flip-n-flex" technique) and 26 patients, respectively. There were no significant differences between patient characteristics or outcomes. Right axillary subanalysis showed the "flip-n-flex" technique group had significantly shorter fluoroscopy times (21.2 ± 6.2 vs 29.6 ± 12.4 min, p = 0.03) and a trend towards less permanent pacemaker implantation (6.3% vs. 42.9%, p = 0.07) compared to the group without "flip-n-flex".

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, despite anatomical challenges, right transaxillary transcatheter aortic valve replacement is comparable to left access. The "flip-n-flex" technique advances right transaxillary as an appealing access for patients with few options.

An Updated Comprehensive Review of Existing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Access

For the past 20 years, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been the treatment of choice for symptomatic aortic stenosis. The transfemoral (TF) access is considered the gold standard approach for TAVR. However, TF-TAVR cannot be performed in some patients; thus, alternative accesses are required. Our review paper generalises the TAVR accesses currently available, including the transapical, transaortic, trans-subclavian/axillary, transcarotid, transcaval, and suprasternal approaches. Their advantages and disadvantages have been analysed. Since there is no standard recommendation for an alternative approach, access selection depends on the expertise of the local cardiac team, patient characteristics, and access properties. Each TAVR centre is recommended to master a minimum of one non-TF access alternative. Of note, more evidence is required to delve into the clinical outcomes of each approach, at both early and long-term (Figure 1).

Alternative access in transcatheter aortic valve replacement-an updated focused review

Aortic Stenosis (AS) is a common condition with an estimated pooled prevalence of all AS in the elderly population at around 12.4%, with that of severe AS estimated to be around 3.4%. In the past, surgical aortic valve replacement was the primary treatment option for severe AS for decades. However, with the compelling evidence on the safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), it has become the gold standard treatment option for many patients with symptomatic severe AS. Transfemoral access has been the preferred method for transcatheter heart valve delivery. However, the prevalent use of TAVR on a diverse patient profile with different risk factors, such as peripheral artery disease, precluded the possibility of a transfemoral approach despite the improvement of valves and delivery systems technology. Therefore, alternative TAVR approaches have gained increasing utility in cases where transfemoral access is unfavorable. We review the journey, evolution, and techniques for different approaches of percutaneous TAVR, including transfemoral, transcarotid, transsubclavian/transaxillary, and transcaval approaches, in addition to the traditional "surgical" transaortic and transapical accesses. Consolidating these data highlights each approach's practicality and limitations, providing additional grounding for case-by-case utilization and future clinical research.

Total Intravenous Anesthesia Using Remimazolam for Transcarotid Approach Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Case Report

The transcarotid approach was introduced in Japan in April 2024 as an alternative approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Because carotid artery blood flow is reduced on one side during the procedure, there is a risk of intraoperative brain stroke. Therefore, it is crucial to check for cerebral complications immediately after the procedure. We report a case involving an 87-year-old female who underwent transcarotid TAVR under general anesthesia with remimazolam and remifentanil. The operation was completed in a short period. There was no evidence of hypotension during the induction of anesthesia, and intraoperative blood pressure control was easy. However, there was a decrease in local oxygen saturation for approximately nine minutes intraoperatively. Following the administration of flumazenil, the patient was quickly awakened, and neurological findings were confirmed to be normal. The patient was discharged without complications. Our findings suggest that remimazolam, an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine, is feasible for the transcarotid TAVR procedure due to its minimal circulatory impact and ability to facilitate rapid and reliable arousal.

Five-year outcomes of transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TC-TAVR) has emerged as an alternative access route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, scarce data exist on long-term outcomes following TC-TAVR. This study aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes at 5 years after TC-TAVR.

METHODS

A total of 110 consecutive patients who underwent TC-TAVR were included. Baseline, procedural, and follow-up data were collected prospectively in a dedicated database. The primary endpoint was the incidence of a composite outcome of all-cause mortality, stroke, and repeat hospitalization at 5-year follow-up. Echocardiography results, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and quality of life (QoL) as assessed with the EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) were examined over the 5-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 77 years (interquartile range [IQR], 72-82.2 years), 42.3% were women, and the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score was 5.02% (IQR, 3.4%-7.5%). The incidence of the composite primary endpoint was 54.5%. Death from any cause occurred in 45.6% of patients (11.9 per 100 patient-years); stroke in 8.2% (1.9 per 100 patient-years); disabling stroke in 2.7% (0.7 per 100 patient-years); and rehospitalization in 27.2%. The improvements in valve hemodynamics, NYHA class, and EQ-VAS following the procedure persisted at 5-year follow-up (P < .001). The incidence of bioprosthetic valve failure was 0.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

About half of the moderate-to high-risk patients undergoing TC-TAVR survived with no major cardiovascular events at the 5-year follow-up. The yearly incidence of stroke events was low, and early improvements in valve hemodynamics, functional status, and QoL persisted at 5 years. These results suggest the long-term safety and efficacy of TC-TAVR and would support this approach as an alternative to surgery in non-transfemoral candidates.

2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, chronic symptomatic, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and acute limb ischemia).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2020 to June 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that was published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2023 during the peer review process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from the "2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with peripheral artery disease have been developed.

2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, chronic symptomatic, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and acute limb ischemia).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2020 to June 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that was published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2023 during the peer review process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from the "2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with peripheral artery disease have been developed.

Transcarotid TAVR for Severe Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis With Virtually Atretic Coarctation of the Thoracic Aorta

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement by alternate access sites allows for treatment of patients with unfavorable anatomy for a transfemoral approach. To our knowledge, we present the first reported case of successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement via the transcarotid approach in a 65-year-old man with a symptomatic severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis and virtually atretic coarctation of the thoracic aorta.

Trans-femoral versus trans-carotid access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: This meta-analysis aims to shed light on any primacy the trans-carotid (TC-TAVR) access may have over the trans-femoral access (TF-TAVR) for those undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane Library were searched, from inception to March 2023 retrieving seven adjusted studies with a total of 6609 patients, of which 5048 underwent TF-TAVR while 1561 underwent TC-TAVR. Results: No divergence in risk of mortality, major bleeding or stroke/transient ischemic attack in TC-TAVR when compared with TF-TAVR was found. In TC-TAVR, the risk of vascular complications was low (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.32-0.83, p = 0.003) as compared with TF-TAVR. Conclusion: As of this analysis, the viability of TC-TAVR as first alternative to TF-TAVR is plausible.

Transcarotid versus trans-axillary/subclavian transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR): A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) is the treatment of choice in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Transcarotid (TCa) or Trans-axillary/subclavian (TAx/Sc) are safer and less invasive non-femoral approaches, where transfemoral access is difficult or impossible to obtain.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed based on PRISMA guidelines after registering in PROSPERO (CRD42023482842). This meta-analysis was performed to compare the safety of the transcarotid and trans-axillary/subclavian approach for TAVR including studies from inception to October 2023.

RESULTS

Seven studies with a total of 6227 patients were included in the analysis (TCa: 2566; TAx/Sc: 3661). Transcarotid TAVR approach had a favorable trend for composite of stroke and all-cause mortality (OR 0.79, CI 0.60-1.04), all-cause mortality, stroke, major vascular complication, and new requirement of permanent pacemaker though those were statistically insignificant. On sub-analysis of the results of the studies based on the territory (USA vs French), composite outcome of all cause mortality, stroke and major bleeding (OR 0.54, CI 0.54-0.81), composite of stroke and all cause mortality (OR 0.64, CI 0.50-0.81), and stroke/TIA (OR 0.53, CI 0.39-0.73) showed lower odds of occurrence among patient managed with TCa approach in the American cohort.

CONCLUSION

Overall, transcarotid approach had favorable though statistically insignificant odds for composite (stroke and all-cause mortality) and individual outcomes (stroke, all-cause mortality, etc.). There are significant variations in observed outcomes based on study's geographic location. Large prospective randomized clinical trials comparing the two approaches with representative samples are necessary to guide the clinicians in choosing among these approaches.

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.

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.

Ambulatory short-term mechanical circulatory support: facilitates recovery and prepares patients for definitive therapy

Short-term mechanical circulatory support (ST-MCS) devices have been traditionally deployed in patients with cardiogenic shock, advanced heart failure, cardiovascular collapse, and cardiorespiratory failure. Limitations of the mechanical support devices are typically related to mobility of the patient since the access is frequently through femoral vasculature. This limits the time the patient can be supported by mechanical circulatory support (MCS). We describe deployment of ST-MCS using alternate access such as the subclavian/axillary artery that facilitates ambulation of the patient. These include the deployment of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) through the subclavian artery, Impella pump through the axillary/subclavian artery, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) using the subclavian artery and jugular vein.

The effect of arterial cannula tip position on differential hypoxemia during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Interaction between native ventricular output and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) flow may hinder oxygenated blood flow to the aortic arch branches, resulting in differential hypoxemia. Typically, the arterial cannula tip is placed in the iliac artery or abdominal aorta. However, the hemodynamics of a more proximal arterial cannula tip have not been studied before. This study investigated the effect of arterial cannula tip position on VA ECMO blood flow to the upper extremities using computational fluid dynamics simulations. Four arterial cannula tip positions (P1. common iliac, P2. abdominal aorta, P3. descending aorta and P4. aortic arch) were compared with different degrees of cardiac dysfunction and VA ECMO support (50%, 80% and 90% support). P4 was able to supply oxygenated blood to the arch vessels at all support levels, while P1 to P3 only supplied the arch vessels during the highest level (90%) of VA ECMO support. Even during the highest level of support, P1 to P3 could only provide oxygenated VA-ECMO flow at 0.11 L/min to the brachiocephalic artery, compared with 0.5 L/min at P4. This study suggests that cerebral perfusion of VA ECMO flow can be increased by advancing the arterial cannula tip towards the aortic arch.

Vascular Access in Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease Undergoing TAVR: The Hostile Registry

BACKGROUND

The optimal access route in patients with severe peripheral artery disease (PAD) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains undetermined.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare clinical outcomes with transfemoral access (TFA), transthoracic access (TTA), and nonthoracic transalternative access (TAA) in TAVR patients with severe PAD.

METHODS

Patients with PAD and hostile femoral access (TFA impossible, or possible only after percutaneous treatment) undergoing TAVR at 28 international centers were included in this registry. The primary endpoint was the propensity-adjusted risk of 30-day major adverse events (MAE) defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), or main access site-related Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 major vascular complications. Outcomes were also stratified according to the severity of PAD using a novel risk score (Hostile score).

RESULTS

Among the 1,707 patients included in the registry, 518 (30.3%) underwent TAVR with TFA after percutaneous treatment, 642 (37.6%) with TTA, and 547 (32.0%) with TAA (mostly transaxillary). Compared with TTA, both TFA (adjusted HR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.45-0.75) and TAA (adjusted HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.47-0.78) were associated with lower 30-day rates of MAE, driven by fewer access site-related complications. Composite risks at 1 year were also lower with TFA and TAA compared with TTA. TFA compared with TAA was associated with lower 1-year risk of stroke/TIA (adjusted HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.24-0.98), a finding confined to patients with low Hostile scores (P_interaction = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with PAD undergoing TAVR, both TFA and TAA were associated with lower 30-day and 1-year rates of MAE compared with TTA, but 1-year stroke/TIA rates were higher with TAA compared with TFA.

Comparison of Alternative Peripheral and Transfemoral Approaches for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis of Propensity-Matched Studies

Background. Transfemoral (TF) access is the gold standard for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Alternative peripheral (AP) artery access such as the carotid or axillary artery is considered when the feasibility of femoral access is in doubt. The outcomes comparison of these 2 approaches is unclear due to limited sample sizes in prior studies. Our aim is to compare the clinical outcomes of TF- and AP-TAVR by conducting a meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies. Methods. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from inception up to and including February 2022 were searched by 3 separate researchers to identify articles reporting propensity-matched, comparative data on TF vs. AP-TAVR. Clinical outcomes were extracted from the articles and pooled for analysis. Results. Seven prior studies, including 9,004 patients, were included in our study, with 6,729 in the TF group and 2,275 in the AP group. In all studies, the baseline characteristics of the patients were highly propensity-matched with the full Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-analysis revealed higher in-hospital/30-day mortality (3.3% vs. 4.4%; OR 0.69; 95% CI (0.51, 0.94); $P=0.02$ ) as well as the incidence of stroke (1.9% vs. 3.5%; OR 0.60; 95% CI (0.43, 0.84); $P=0.003$ ) for the AP group. There were no significant differences in the incidence of major vascular complications, pacemaker implantation, bleeding, or acute kidney injury. Conclusions. Our meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies showed AP-TAVR contains an additional 1.1% risk of early mortality and an additional 1.6% risk of stroke compared to TF-TAVR. These risks should be considered when deciding on access.

Advances in technology and techniques for transcatheter aortic valve replacement with concomitant peripheral arterial disease

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a prevalent disease affecting 3.7% of the adult population aged 65 or above. In the past, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was the only definitive therapy available for the treatment of severe AS. Owing to the invasive nature of open-heart surgery, patients with advanced age and frailty could not benefit from SAVR. The advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the past decade has offered an alternative treatment option for patients with severe AS, particularly those who are deemed to have high surgical risks. Nevertheless, a large proportion of patients also have concomitant peripheral arterial disease (PAD), which increases the risk of peri-procedural vascular complication, and precludes the possibility of transfemoral TAVR owing to inadequate luminal size for delivery system deployment. In this review, the prevalence and outcome of TAVR patients with PAD will be discussed. Furthermore, novel technologies and techniques that enable TAVR to be safely performed using transfemoral or alternative access in patients with severe PAD will be reviewed.

Transcaval Versus Transaxillary TAVR in Contemporary Practice: A Propensity-Weighted Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare transcaval and transaxillary artery access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) at experienced medical centers in contemporary practice.

BACKGROUND

There are no systematic comparisons of transcaval and transaxillary TAVR access routes.

METHODS

Eight experienced centers contributed local data collected for the STS/ACC TVT Registry (Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry) between 2017 and 2020. Outcomes after transcaval and axillary/subclavian (transaxillary) access were adjusted for baseline imbalances using doubly robust (inverse propensity weighting plus regression) estimation and compared.

RESULTS

Transcaval access was used in 238 procedures and transaxillary access in 106; for comparison, transfemoral access was used in 7,132 procedures. Risk profiles were higher among patients selected for nonfemoral access but similar among patients requiring transcaval and transaxillary access. Stroke and transient ischemic attack were 5-fold less common after transcaval than transaxillary access (2.5% vs 13.2%; OR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.06-0.72; P = 0.014) compared with transfemoral access (1.7%). Major and life-threatening bleeding (Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 ≥ type 2) were comparable (10.0% vs 13.2%; OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.26-1.66; P = 0.38) compared with transfemoral access (3.5%), as was blood transfusion (19.3% vs 21.7%; OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.49-2.33; P = 0.87) compared with transfemoral access (7.1%). Vascular complications, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and survival were similar between transcaval and transaxillary access. More patients were discharged directly home and without stroke or transient ischemic attack after transcaval than transaxillary access (87.8% vs 62.3%; OR: 5.19; 95% CI: 2.45-11.0; P < 0.001) compared with transfemoral access (90.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing transcaval TAVR had lower rates of stroke and similar bleeding compared with transaxillary access in a contemporary experience from 8 US centers. Both approaches had more complications than transfemoral access. Transcaval TAVR access may offer an attractive option.

Transcarotid Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Simple "Flip-n-Flex" Technique

Transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly accepted as a safe and efficacious alternative when transfemoral access is contraindicated. Technical and anatomical considerations unique to transcarotid access warrant several adaptations to the routine TAVR procedure. We describe our approach to overcome these challenges and improve efficiency, including adoption of the flip-n-flex technique that we originally developed for right transaxillary TAVR. This technique has been used at our center since 2019 in both left and right transcarotid TAVR approaches with success to ensure coaxial alignment of the transcatheter heart valve to the aortic root.

Transapical-transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients without transvascular options: Modified transapical approach

OBJECTIVES

Outcomes in patients with iliofemoral and concomitant iliofemoral-remote arteriopathies who cannot undergo transfemoral or other alternative transvascular approaches have not been studied so far. This study aimed to evaluate the early and midterm outcomes after transapical (TA)-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with femoral and femoral-remote arteriopathies who cannot undergo transvascular approaches.

METHODS

Multimorbid patients with severe aortic stenosis and distinct panarteriopathy underwent TA-TAVI treatment between January 2012 and January 2021 at the authors' institution. Second- and third-generation self- and balloon-expanding valves were used. For patients without arterial access, TA-TAVI was modified to the artery-no-touch technique.

RESULTS

Seventy-two consecutive elderly patients (78.2 ± 6.9 years; 73% male) were included in the study. The Society of Thoracic Surgery-Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 7 ± 5%. No procedural deaths or conversion to conventional surgery was registered. The 30-day and midterm mortality rates were 5% and 28%, respectively. The median time of freedom from a composite of death and cardiocerebral adverse events was 34.3 months (95% confidence interval: 17.6-51.1). The rate of moderate/severe paravalvular leakage was 0%. The pacemaker rate was 11%.

CONCLUSIONS

TA-TAVI is a safe method with low-rate procedural complications and shows good early and midterm outcomes in patients with extensive panarteriopathy for whom transfemoral and other alternative transvascular approaches are contraindicated or at high interventional risk. The modified artery-no-touch TA-TAVI method is safe and feasible for selected patients with no other possible arterial approach.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for degenerated surgical aortic bioprosthesis: A systematic review

Background:

Transcatheter aortic valve in valve (Aviv) replacement has been shown to be an effective therapeutic option in patients with failed aortic bioprosthetic valves. This review intended to evaluate contemporary 1-year outcomes of Aviv in recent studies.

Methods:

A systematic review on outcomes of Aviv was performed using the best available evidence from studies obtained using a MEDLINE, Cochrane database, and SCOPUS search. Endpoints of interest were survival, coronary artery obstruction, prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), stroke, pacemaker implantation, and structural valve deterioration.

Results:

A total of 3339 patients from 23 studies were included. Mean age was 68–80 years, 20%–50% were female, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score ranged from 5.7 to 31.1. Thirty-day all-cause mortality ranged from 2% to 8%, and 1-year all-cause mortality ranged from 8% to 33%. Coronary artery obstruction risk after Aviv ranged from 0.6% to 4%. One-year stroke ranged from 2% to 8%. Moderate-severe PPM occurred in 11%–58%, and pacemaker rate at 1 year ranged from 5% to 12%.

Conclusion:

Transcatheter aortic ViV has emerged as an effective therapeutic option to treat patients with failed bioprostheses. The acceptable complication rate and favorable 1-year outcomes make Aviv an appropriate alternative to redo surgical aortic valve replacement.

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.

Transapical-transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve

BACKGROUND

Scarcely any data has been published on the mid-term effect of transapical-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TA-TAVI) using the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve (S3; Edwards Lifesciences Corp., Irvine, CA, USA). We present mid-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after TA-TAVI utilizing S3.

METHODS

Between 02/2014-06/2017, 122 elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis underwent TA-TAVI utilizing S3 at our institution. We conducted clinical and echocardiographic follow-up. The mean follow-up was 15 months. All end-point-related outcomes were adjudicated according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions.

RESULTS

The STS-score of the entire cohort was 6.26±4.6. More than one-third of the patients exhibited severe peripheral artery disease. The 30-d all-cause mortality, all-stroke rate, and myocardial infarction of the entire cohort were 4.1%, 1.6%, and 0.8% respectively. Median survival time of the entire cohort was 35 months. The cumulative mid-term myocardial infarction and stroke rate was 2.6% and 3.5%, respectively. The postoperative moderate/severe paravalvular leakage occurred in 1.6% of cases. At discharge, one-year and two-year postprocedure peak/mean gradients were 16.6±8.3/ 9±5.1 mmHg, 18±6.9/ 10±4.5 mmHg, and 22.2±5.4/ 12.8±4.6 mmHg, respectively. The rate of new pacemaker cases was 14.1%. Acute kidney injury network 2/3 appears, as an independent predictor of mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed very promising early and mid-term clinical outcomes with a high degree of device success and good hemodynamic performance after TA-TAVI using the S3 in the intermediate risk patient profile.

A meta-analysis of transcarotid versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Carotid access has shown promise as an excellent delivery route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We aimed to compare outcomes of transcarotid (TC) and transfemoral (TF) TAVR by conducting a search and analysis of the best evidence in the literature to shed light on its safety and effectiveness.

METHODS

The PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane library from inception to July 2020 were searched to identify articles reporting comparative data on TC versus TF approaches for TAVR. Patients' baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were extracted from the articles and pooled for analysis.

RESULTS

Five studies, including a total of 2470 patients, were included in the study with 1859 patients in the TF group and 611 patients in the TC group. The TC group had higher prevalence of peripheral vascular disease, while the patients in the TF group was older. Meta-analysis revealed that there was no significant differences between the two groups with regard to 30-day mortality (p = 0.09), stroke (p = 0.28), new dialysis (p = 0.58), major bleeding (p = 0.69), or pacemaker implantation (p = 0.44). The TF group had a higher incidence of vascular complications (3.9% vs. 2.3%; OR 2.22; 95% CI [1.13, 4.38]; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the TF approach, TC-TAVR is associated with comparable procedural and clinical outcomes. Our analysis found a lower rate of vascular complication in TC access compared with TF access. This supports consideration of such an alternative access when there are concerns over the feasibility of TF access.

Suprasternal Versus Transfemoral Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From a Propensity Score Matched Analysis

Background Suprasternal access is an alternative access strategy for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) where the innominate artery is cannulated from an incision above the sternal notch. To date, suprasternal access has never been compared with transfemoral TAVR. Thus, we sought to assess safety, feasibility, and early clinical outcomes between suprasternal and transfemoral access for patients undergoing TAVR. Methods and Results We evaluated patients from 2 institutional prospective, observational registries containing 1348 patients. Patients were selected in a 2:1 ratio (transfemoral:suprasternal) on the basis of propensity score matching. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes included the incidence of ischemic stroke, major bleeding, vascular injury, left bundle-branch block, and permanent pacemaker implantation at 30-day follow-up. Propensity score matching identified 89 patients undergoing suprasternal TAVR and 159 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR suitable for analysis. There was no significant difference between suprasternal TAVR and transfemoral TAVR with respect to in-hospital mortality (1.1% versus 0.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.80; 95% CI, 0.11-29.06; P=0.680). No patients in either cohort suffered an ischemic stroke. The incidence of major bleeding (2.2% versus 2.5%; OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.16-4.96; P=0.895) and vascular injury (1.1% versus 1.9%; OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.06-5.77; P=0.651) did not differ significantly. The frequency of left bundle-branch block (9.4% versus 15.8%; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.24-1.30; P=0.177) and permanent pacemaker implantation (11.2% versus 5.9%; OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.75-5.45; P=0.169) were not statistically significantly different. Conclusions Suprasternal TAVR was safe and achieved promising short-term clinical outcomes when compared with transfemoral TAVR. Future studies seeking to identify the optimal alternative access site should evaluate suprasternal TAVR access alongside other substitutes for transfemoral TAVR.

Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with aortic diseases

OBJECTIVES

Patients scheduled for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) treatment frequently present with concomitant aortic diseases, in which case they are usually considered to be at high interventional risk and, in particular, unable to undergo the transfemoral TAVI approach. Since the establishment of the 'transfemoral first' strategy for TAVI, there has been an evidence gap with regard to the outcomes of such patients. We aimed to evaluate the mid-term outcomes after transapical TAVI in patients with diverse aortic diseases.

METHODS

Fifty-five consecutive elderly patients (78.4 years; standard deviation: 8.6 years) at intermediate surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis and aortic diseases (porcelain aorta 36%, ascending aneurysm 15%, descending aneurysm 26%, type-B dissection 4%, aortic thrombus 7%, Leriche syndrome 4%, aortic kinking 11%, aortic ulcer 2%, previous aortic operation 20%, aortic elongation/tortuosity 4%) underwent transapical TAVI treatment between January 2011 and November 2019 at our institution. We used the second-and third-generation self- and balloon-expanding valves. The follow-up time was 92.6 patient-years.

RESULTS

The Society of Thoracic Surgery-Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 7% (standard deviation: 4%). The 30-day mortality and all-stroke rates were 6% and 4%, respectively. The median survival time was 24.9 months (95% confidence interval 17.6-32.3). The median time of freedom from a composite of death and cardio-cerebral adverse events was 24.3 months (95% confidence interval 11.9-36.8). The rate of moderate/severe paravalvular leakage was 2%. The pacemaker rate was 10%. No early or late aortic syndrome occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Transapical TAVI is a safe method and shows very promising early and mid-term outcomes, without early/late aortic syndrome, in patients with aortic diseases for whom transfemoral TAVI as the first-line transcatheter method might be contraindicated or not feasible.

Transcarotid Versus Transaxillary/Subclavian Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR): Analysis of Outcomes

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the percutaneous management of valvular heart disease and has evolved to progressively minimalist techniques over the past decade. This review discusses the impact of minimalist TAVR, explores the alternative approaches when transfemoral (TF) TAVR is not possible, and analyzes the current outcomes of transcarotid (TC) versus transaxillary/subclavian (TAx) TAVR, which are the two leading nonfemoral (NF) approaches emerging as the preferred alternatives to TF TAVR.

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.

Impact of diverse aortic pathologies on outcomes after transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

Some patients who undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a concomitant diverse aortic pathologies (AP). They are usually considered high-risk candidates for the procedure and require further assessment to determine the best vascular approach. The impact of these AP on TAVR is not well known as the information is scarce. We aimed to evaluate midterm clinical impact of different AP after transapical (TA)-TAVR.

METHODS

Twenty patients with atherosclerotic/occluding aortic diseases (A/OAD) (porcelain aorta, Leriche Syndrome, penetrating aortic ulcer, and aortic thrombus), 24 patients with aortic morphologic diseases (AMD) (thoracic/abdominal aortic aneurysms, aortic kinking, aortic type B dissection, aortic elongation/tortuosity, and previous aortic intervention), and 11 patients with combined aortic diseases (CAD) underwent TA-TAVR treatment between January 2011 and November 2019 at our center. We conducted up to 5-years clinical follow-up.

RESULTS

All patients were classified in the heart team as a high interventional risk. The 30-day mortality and stroke were 5% and 10% in the A/OAD, 8.3% and 0% in the AMD, and 0% and 0% in the CAD, respectively. The median time of freedom from a composite of death and cardio-cerebral adverse events was 22.1 months [95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.9-34.3] in A/OAD versus 34.3 months [95% CI: 15.6-53] in AMD versus 17 months [95% CI: 0-39.4] in CAD; p = .525. We registered neither procedural aortic injury nor aortic syndrome at follow-up. The moderate/severe paravalvular leakage rates were 5%, 0% and 0% in the A/OAD, AMD and CAD, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Independent of underlying AP, the TA-TAVR is a safe method and shows very promising early and midterm outcomes in patients with various AP.

Comparable Outcomes for Transcarotid and Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement at a High Volume US Center

With continued growth of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), safe alternative access remains important for patients without adequate transfemoral (TF) access. Registry-based outcomes with transcarotid (TC) TAVR are favorable compared to transapical or transaxillary/subclavian, but TC vs TF comparisons have not been made. Our objective was to compare outcomes between TF and TC access routes for TAVR at a high-volume United States center. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated all TF and TC TAVR procedures from June 11, 2014 (first TC case) through December 31, 2019. The primary outcomes were 30-day stroke and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were 1-year stroke, 1-year survival, and 30-day and 1-year life-threatening/major bleeding, vascular complications, and myocardial infarction. Propensity score weighted (PSW) models were used to compare risk-adjusted TF and TC outcomes. Of 1,465 TAVR procedures, 1319 (90%) were TF and 146 (10%) were TC. Procedure time and length of stay did not differ between groups. Unadjusted 30-day stroke (TF = 2.0%, TC = 2.7%, P = 0.536) and mortality (TF = 2.1%, TC = 2.7%, P = 0.629) were similar between groups. PSW 30-day stroke (odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval (CI)) = 0.8 (0.2-2.8)) and mortality (OR (95% CI) = 0.8 (0.2-3.0)) were similar between groups. Unadjusted and PSW 30-day major/life threatening bleeding, major vascular complications, and myocardial infarction did not differ between groups. Survival at one year was 90% (88%-92%) for TF patients and 87% (81%-93%) for TC patients (unadjusted P = 0.28, PSW hazard ratio = 1.0 (0.6-1.7)). Transcarotid TAVR is associated with similar outcomes compared to transfemoral TAVR at an experienced, high-volume center.