Transfemoral vs Non-transfemoral Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement is Ready for Most Low-risk Patients: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has undergone rapid expansion, emerging as a viable therapeutic option for low-risk patients in lieu of surgical aortic valve replacement. This paper aims to provide a review of the scientific evidence concerning TAVR in low-risk patients, encompassing both observational and clinical trial data. Furthermore, a substantial proportion of low-risk patients possesses a bicuspid aortic valve, necessitating careful examination of the pertinent anatomic and clinical considerations to TAVR that is highlighted in this review. Additionally, the review expands upon some of the unique challenges associated with alternate access in low-risk patients evaluated for TAVR. Last, this review outlines the pivotal role of a multidisciplinary heart team approach in the execution of all TAVR procedures and the authors' vision of 'minimalist TAVR' as a new era in low-risk TAVR.

[Local versus locoregional anesthesia in transfemoral TAVI procedures]

INTRODUCTION

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the treatment of choice for the most fragile patients with severe aortic stenosis. The transfemoral route is preferred as the simplest and safest. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy, tolerance and safety of local vs. locoregional anesthesia in trans-femoral TAVI procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

This was a single-center retrospective study. Patients treated with femoral TAVI between February 25 and November 15, 2022 at the University Hospital of Reims were included, and two groups (local and locoregional anesthesia) were compared.

RESULTS

TAVI success rate (92.9%), death rate (3.0%) and procedure duration (90.5 ± 13.5 minutes) did not differ between groups (p = 0.18, 0.15 and 0.55 respectively). For intra- and post-procedural treatments, the use of sedation, analgesics and benzodiazepines did not differ between groups. The cumulative dose of Remifentanil used per-procedure was lower in the local anesthesia group than in the locoregional anesthesia group (148.6 ± 71.9 mcg vs. 208.9 ± 110.0 mcg; p = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

In this non-randomized retrospective study, local and locoregional anesthesia had comparable safety and efficacy in transfemoral TAVI procedures. In a constrained context and with a view to simplification, these results encourage transfemoral TAVIs to be performed under local anaesthesia, and to consider a "PCI-like" approach, without the presence of an anaesthetist, for selected patients without respiratory, musculoskeletal or agitation disorders, or vascular approach difficulties.

Exploring Optimal Strategies for Surgical Access in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionised the management of severe aortic stenosis, particularly for patients deemed high risk or inoperable for traditional surgical aortic valve replacement. The transfemoral approach is the preferred route whenever feasible, attributed to its minimally invasive nature, reduced procedural morbidity, and shorter recovery times. In total, 80-90% of TAVI procedures are performed via the transfemoral route. However, anatomical constraints such as severe peripheral arterial disease, small vessel diameter, or significant vessel tortuosity can preclude the use of this access site. In such cases, alternative access strategies must be considered to ensure the successful implantation of the valve. This review aims to provide a comprehensive summary of the various surgical techniques available for TAVI access, exploring the rationale, technical aspects, and challenges associated with each method. We will explore alternative routes, including the transapical, transaortic, transaxillary, and transcarotid approaches, highlighting their respective benefits and limitations.

Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Transcatheter, Minimally Invasive, and Conventional Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

The landscape of aortic valve replacement (AVR) has evolved dramatically over the years, but time-varying outcomes have yet to be comprehensively explored. This study aimed to compare the all-cause mortality among 3 AVR techniques: transcatheter (TAVI), minimally invasive (MIAVR), and conventional AVR (CAVR). An electronic literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TAVI with CAVR and RCTs or propensity score-matched (PSM) studies comparing MIAVR with CAVR or MIAVR to TAVI. Individual patient data for all-cause mortality were derived from graphical reconstruction of Kaplan-Meier curves. Pairwise comparisons and network meta-analysis were conducted. Sensitivity analyses were performed in the TAVI arm for high risk and low/intermediate risk, as well as patients who underwent transfemoral (TF) TAVI. A total of 27 studies with 16,554 patients were included. In the pairwise comparisons, TAVI showed superior mortality to CAVR until 37.5 months, beyond which there was no significant difference. When restricted to TF TAVI versus CAVR, a consistent mortality benefit favoring TF TAVI was seen (shared frailty hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76 to 0.98, p = 0.024). In the network meta-analysis involving majority PSM data, MIAVR demonstrated significantly lower mortality than TAVI (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.82) and CAVR (HR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.80); this association remained compared with TF TAVI but with a lower extent of benefit (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.65 to 0.99). In conclusion, the initial short- to medium-term mortality benefit for TAVI over CAVR was attenuated over the longer term. In the subset of patients who underwent TF TAVI, a consistent benefit was found. Among majority PSM data, MIAVR showed improved mortality compared with TAVI and CAVR but less than the TF TAVI subset, which requires validation by robust RCTs.

Midterm Outcomes of Underweight Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Insight From the LAPLACE-TAVR Registry

Background

Obesity is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease; however, a paradoxical effect of obesity has been reported in patients with heart failure or myocardial infarction. Although several studies have suggested the same obesity paradox in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), they included a limited number of underweight patients.

Objectives

This study aimed to clarify the effect of being underweight on TAVR outcomes.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 1,693 consecutive patients undergoing TAVR between 2010 and 2020. The patients were categorized according to body mass index: underweight (<18.5 kg/m²; n = 242), normal weight (18.5 to 25 kg/m²; n = 1,055), and overweight (>25 kg/m²; n = 396). We compared midterm outcomes after TAVR among the 3 groups; all clinical events were in accordance with the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria.

Results

Underweight patients were more likely to be women and have severe heart failure symptoms, peripheral artery disease, anemia, hypoalbuminemia, and pulmonary dysfunction. They also had lower ejection fractions, smaller aortic valve areas, and higher surgical risk scores. Device failure, life-threatening bleeding, major vascular complications, and 30-day mortality occurred more frequently in underweight patients. The midterm survival rate of the underweight group was inferior to those of the other 2 groups (P < 0.0001; average follow-up, 717 days). In the multivariate analysis, underweight was associated with noncardiovascular mortality (HR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.16-2.75) but not cardiovascular mortality (HR: 1.28; 95% CI: 0.58-1.88) after TAVR.

Conclusions

Underweight patients had a worse midterm prognosis, demonstrating the obesity paradox in this TAVR population. (Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in Japanese patients with aortic stenosis: multi-center registry; UMIN000031133).

Impact of sex on in-hospital mortality and 90-day readmissions in patients undergoing transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR): Analysis from the nationwide readmission database

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate sex differences in in-hospital mortality and 90-day readmission rates among patients undergoing transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) in the United States of America.

BACKGROUND

Women have higher rates of mortality and rehospitalization than men following many cardiac procedures. TMVR has grown as an alternative to mitral valve surgery for patients at high surgical risk. The rates of TMVR mortality and rehospitalization by sex are unknown.

METHODS

We analyzed the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) from 2016 to 2019 to identify hospitalizations for TMVR. Sex differences in in-hospital mortality and 90-day readmissions were determined using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Between 2016 and 2019, 4109 hospitalizations for TMVR were identified, comprised of 1758 (42.8%) men and 2351 (57.2%) women. The median age was 74 years for both men and women. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality during index hospitalization (6.51% vs. 6.69%; p = 0.852) and all-cause 90-day readmission (28.19% vs. 29.59%; p = 0.563) between men and women. Across the study period, trend analysis did not reveal a significant change in in-hospital mortality (men p = 0.087, women p = 0.194) or 90-day readmission rates (men p = 0.569, women p = 0.454).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing TMVR, in-hospital mortality and 90-day readmissions are similar between men and women. Between 2016 and 2019, TMVR in-hospital mortality and 90-day readmission rates remained unchanged. Further research is necessary to confirm these findings.

Sex-Specific Considerations in Degenerative Aortic Stenosis for Female-Tailored Transfemoral Aortic Valve Implantation Management

The impact of sex on pathophysiological processes, clinical presentation, treatment options, as well as outcomes of degenerative aortic stenosis remain poorly understood. Female patients are well represented in transfemoral aortic valve implantation (TAVI) trials and appear to derive favorable outcomes with TAVI. However, higher incidences of major bleeding, vascular complications, and stroke have been reported in women following TAVI. The anatomical characteristics and pathophysiological features of aortic stenosis in women might guide a tailored planning of the percutaneous approach. We highlight whether a sex-based TAVI management strategy might impact on clinical outcomes. This review aimed to evaluate the impact of sex from diagnosis to treatment of degenerative aortic stenosis, discussing the latest evidence on epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, therapeutic options, and outcomes. Furthermore, we focused on technical sex-oriented considerations in TAVI including the preprocedural screening, device selection, implantation strategy, and postprocedural management.

Concomitant anaortic OPCAB and transfemoral TAVR for high-risk patients: A case series

BACKGROUND

Combined on-pump coronary artery bypass (ONCAB) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the treatment of choice for concomitant severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease not amenable to percutaneous coronary intervention. Extensive aortic calcification and atheromatous disease may prohibit cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamping. In these cases, anaortic off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) is a Class I (EACTS 2018) and Class IIA (AHA 2021) indication for surgical coronary revascularization. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has similar benefits when compared with SAVR for this population (Partner 2 & 3). Herewith we describe a case series of concomitant Anaortic OPCAB and TAVR via the transfemoral approach for patients with coronary artery and valve disease considered too high risk for traditional coronary artery bypass grafting and SAVR due to severe aortic disease.

METHODS/RESULTS

Eight patients underwent anaortic OPCAB and transfemoral TAVR during the same anesthetic in a hybrid operating room. Seven patients with multivessel disease had anaortic OPCAB via a sternotomy using composite grafts, one patient with LAD disease had anaortic OPCAB using a Da Vinci-assisted MIDCAB approach. All patients then had an Edwards Sapien 3 TAVR placed percutaneously via the common femoral artery. There was no 30 mortality or CVA in the series and all patients were discharged to home or a rehabilitation facility on Day 4-13.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined anaortic OPCAB and transfemoral TAVR is a safe and feasible approach to treating concomitant extensive coronary artery disease and severe aortic stenosis. The aortic no-touch technique provides benefits in the elderly high-risk patients by reducing the risk of postoperative myocardial infarction and cerebrovascular stroke.

Comparison of outcomes of trans-subclavian versus trans-apical approaches in transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Background

Many patients are unsuitable for conventional femoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) but there is limited evidence as to which alternative approach has the best outcomes. We compared clinical outcomes in patients undergoing trans-subclavian (TS) or trans-apical (TA) TAVI.

Methods

This was a national retrospective observational study of patients undergoing surgical TAVI in Scotland between January 2013 and March 2020. The pre-operative patient characteristics, intraoperative details and post-operative outcomes were compared between TS and TA cohorts using data from the National Institute of Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) registry.

Results

Among 1055 patients who underwent TAVI, TS or TA access was used in 50 (4.7%) and 90 (8.5%) patients respectively. Self-expanding Medtronic Evolut R valves were used in 84% of TS procedures, while balloon-expandable Edwards SAPIEN valves were used in all TA procedures. The TS group had a lower mean logistic EuroSCORE than the TA group (27.31 ± 19.44% vs 34.92 ± 19.61% p = 0.029). The TS approach was associated with a higher incidence of moderate postprocedural aortic regurgitation (12.5% vs 2.4%, p = 0.025). There was no significant difference in 30-day, 1-year or overall all-cause mortality.

Conclusions

Both trans-subclavian and trans-apical access are viable approaches for patients requiring non-transfemoral TAVI. Differences in peri-procedural indices reflect the disparate patient populations and factors governing prosthesis choice, and short- and long-term mortality was similar.

Transaxillary Versus Transaortic Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in the Treatment of Aortic Stenosis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a technique that can be performed through multiple approaches, and the benefits of one approach over another are still being evaluated to make sure patients receive the best possible care. Our meta-analysis aims to compare clinical and procedural outcomes of the transaxillary (TAx) and transaortic (TAo) approaches to validate the more optimal procedure.

The systematic literature search was done via PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central databases from inception to December 2021, to identify articles reporting data on both TAx TAVR and TAo TAVR. In addition, we checked ClinicalTrials.gov for more published or unpublished trials. Baseline patient characteristics, procedure results, and clinical results were extracted from the article and pooled for analysis. A quantitative meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.3 (Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). The outcomes extracted included blood transfusion, conversion to sternotomy, tamponade, contrast amount, procedure time, bleeding incidents (minor, major, or life-threatening), length of stay (LOS), vascular complications (minor or major), acute kidney injury (AKI), paravalvular leak (PVL), permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, 30-day mortality, one-year mortality, 30-day stroke, and device success.

The final analysis included 11 articles, consisting of 10 observational studies and a pivotal trial. Cumulative results revealed that the TAo approach had a significantly lower incidence of vascular complications (RR = 2.30; 95% CI = 1.22 to 4.35), and the need for implantation of a permanent pacemaker (RR = 1.82; 95% CI = 1.30 to 2.54) along with a lower amount of contrast (mean difference (MD) = 27.40; 95% CI = 3.73 to 51.08) needed to be used. The TAx group was associated with a significantly lower 30-day mortality (RR = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.31 to 0.69), AKI (RR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.67), and length of hospital stay (MD = −1.95; 95% CI = −2.51 to −1.38). No significant difference was observed between the outcomes of 30-day stroke (RR = 1.38; 95% CI = 0.81 to 2.33), PVL (RR = 1.05; 95% CI = 0.50 to 2.18), tamponade (RR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.12 to 4.03), conversion to sternotomy (RR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.06 to 4.30), device success (RR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.07), the incidence of bleeding (RR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.51 to 1.10), and procedure time (MD = 4.44; 95% CI = −96.30 to 105.17).

Both the procedures were associated with their benefits and risks. Although most of the outcomes favored TAx transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), it is too early to say if it would be better than TAo TAVI. To authenticate the findings concluded in this meta-analysis and further improve our understanding of the efficacy, safety, and risk profile between TAx and TAo approaches for TAVI, large sample randomized clinical trials are required on a wide scale.

Minireview: Transaortic Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Is There Still an Indication?

Transaortic (TAo) transcatheter aortic valve implantation has become a valid alternative access route in patients with unsuitable femoral arteries. The current literature does not allow to clearly favor one of the alternative access routes. Every approach has its specific advantages. Transaortic (TAo) access is of particular importance in the case of calcifications of the supra-aortic branches and the aortic arch, as under these circumstances other alternative access routes, such as transaxillary or transcarotid, are not feasible. The purpose of this minireview is to give an overview and update on TAo transcatheter aortic valve implantation focusing on indication, technical aspects, and recent clinical data.

Case Report: Lithoplasty-Assisted Trans-Axillary Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Implantation

We present the case of a severely symptomatic patient with a malfunctioning aortic bioprosthesis and severe multidistrict atherosclerosis that was addressed to our unit for transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation. The imaging and clinical assessment that led to the selection of the access route is discussed.

Gender Differences after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR): Insights from the Italian Clinical Service Project

Background: TAVR is a safe alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR); however, sex-related differences are still debated. This research aimed to examine gender differences in a real-world transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) cohort. Methods: All-comer aortic stenosis (AS) patients undergoing TAVR with a Medtronic valve across 19 Italian sites were prospectively included in the Italian Clinical Service Project (NCT01007474) between 2007 and 2019. The primary endpoint was 1-year mortality. We also investigated 3-year mortality, and ischemic and hemorrhagic endpoints, and we performed a propensity score matching to assemble patients with similar baseline characteristics. Results: Out of 3821 patients, 2149 (56.2%) women were enrolled. Compared with men, women were older (83 ± 6 vs. 81 ± 6 years, p < 0.001), more likely to present severe renal impairment (GFR ≤ 30 mL/min, 26.3% vs. 16.3%, p < 0.001) but had less previous cardiovascular events (all p < 0.001), with a higher mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score (7.8% ± 7.1% vs. 7.2 ± 7.5, p < 0.001) and a greater mean aortic gradient (52.4 ± 15.3 vs. 47.3 ± 12.8 mmHg, p < 0.001). Transfemoral TAVR was performed more frequently in women (87.2% vs. 82.1%, p < 0.001), with a higher rate of major vascular complications and life-threatening bleeding (3.9% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.012 and 2.5% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.024). One-year mortality differed between female and male (11.5% vs. 15.0%, p = 0.002), and this difference persisted after adjustment for significant confounding variables (Adj.HR1yr 1.47, 95%IC 1.18–1.82, p < 0.001). Three-year mortality was also significantly lower in women compared with men (19.8% vs. 24.9%, p < 0.001) even after adjustment for age, STS score, eGFR, diabetes and severe COPD (Adj.HR3yr 1.42, 95%IC 1.21–1.68, p < 0.001). These results were confirmed in 689 pairs after propensity score matching. Conclusion: Despite higher rates of peri-procedural complications, women presented better survival than men. This better adaptive response to TAVR may be driven by sex-specific factors.

Alternate accesses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

When transfemoral (TF) access is contraindicated in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), alternate access strategies are considered. The choice of one alternate access over the other remains controversial.

METHODS

Following a comprehensive literature search, studies comparing any combination of TF, transapical (TA), transaortic (TAo), transcarotid (TC), and trans-subclavian (TS) TAVR were identified. Data were pooled using fixed- and random-effects network meta-analysis. Rank scores with probability ranks of different treatment groups were calculated.

RESULTS

Eighty-four studies (26,449 patients) were included. Compared to TF access, TA and TAo accesses were associated with higher 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-1.94; OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.21-2.66, respectively), while the TC and TS showed no difference (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.64-1.95; OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.67-2.27, respectively); TF access ranked best followed by TC. There was no significant difference in 30-day stroke; TC access ranked best followed by TS. At a weighted mean follow-up of 1.6 years, TA and TAo accesses were associated with higher long-term mortality versus TF (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.31, 95% CI 1.18-1.45; IRR 1.41, 95% CI 1.11-1.79, respectively); there was no difference between TC and TS versus TF access (IRR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70-1.47; IRR 1.16, 95% CI 0.82-1.66, respectively); TF access ranked best followed by TC. At a weighted mean follow-up of 1.4 years, only TA access was associated with higher long-term stroke compared to TF (IRR 3.01, 95% CI 1.15-7.87); TF access ranked as the best strategy followed by TAo.

CONCLUSION

TC and TS approaches are associated with superior postoperative outcomes compared to other TAVR alternate access strategies. Randomized trials definitively assessing the safety and efficacy of alternate access strategies are needed.

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.

The Role of the Axillary Artery as a Second Access Choice in TAVI Procedures

With transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) technology expanding its indications for low-risk patients, the number of TAVI-eligible patients will globally grow, requiring a better understanding about the second-best access choice. Regarding the potential access sites, the transfemoral retrograde route is recognized as the standard approach and first choice according to current guidelines. However, this approach is not suitable in up to 10-15% of patients, for whom an alternative non-femoral access is required. Among the alternative non-femoral routes, the transaxillary approach has received increasing recognition due to its proximity and relatively straight course from the axillary artery to the aortic annulus, which provides a more accurate device deployment. Here we discuss some particular aspects of the transaxillary access, either percutaneously performed or by cutdown dissection.

Intravascular lithotripsy-assisted balloon angioplasty to facilitate transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation in a patient with coral reef aorta

This case describes the management of a woman in her 70s with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and concomitant severe stenosis of the suprarenal abdominal aorta due to 'coral reef' calcification of the aortic wall and lumen (CRA). Due to her religious beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness regarding the use of blood products, she rejected the option of surgical aortic valve replacement. Transfemoral (TF) delivery of a transcatheter aortic valve was challenged by the presence of CRA. A successful TF transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was achieved by the treatment of the CRA with intravascular lithotripsy-assisted angioplasty, followed by delivery and deployment of a self-expanding TAVI valve.

Atrial Fibrillation Is Associated With Mortality in Intermediate Surgical Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: Analyses From the PARTNER 2A and PARTNER S3i Trials

Background The impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) in intermediate surgical risk patients with severe aortic stenosis who undergo either transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) is not well established. Methods and Results Data were assessed in 2663 patients from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 2A or S3i trials. Analyses grouped patients into 3 categories according to their baseline and discharge rhythms (ie, sinus rhythm [SR]/SR, SR/AF, or AF/AF). Among patients with transcatheter AVR (n=1867), 79.2% had SR/SR, 17.6% had AF/AF, and 3.2% had SR/AF. Among patients with surgical AVR (n=796), 71.7% had SR/SR, 14.1% had AF/AF, and 14.2% had SR/AF. Patients with transcatheter AVR in AF at discharge had increased 2-year mortality (SR/AF versus SR/SR; hazard ratio [HR], 2.73; 95% CI, 1.68-4.44; P<0.0001; AF/AF versus SR/SR; HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.16-2.09; P=0.003); patients with SR/AF also experienced increased 2-year mortality relative to patients with AF/AF (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.04-3.00; P=0.03). For patients with surgicalAVR, the presence of AF at discharge was also associated with increased 2-year mortality (SR/AF versus SR/SR; HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.25-2.96; P=0.002; and AF/AF versus SR/SR; HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.06-2.63; P=0.027). Rehospitalization and persistent advanced heart failure symptoms were also more common among patients with transcatheter AVR and surgical AVR discharged in AF, and major bleeding was more common in the transcatheter AVR cohort. Conclusions The presence of AF at discharge in patients with intermediate surgical risk aortic stenosis was associated with worse outcomes-especially in patients with baseline SR-including increased all-cause mortality at 2-year follow-up. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01314313 and NCT03222128.

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.

Alternative Access for Mechanical Circulatory Support

Femoral arterial access is the default strategy for large-bore interventional procedures, including temporary mechanical circulatory support implantation and structural heart therapies, based on superior outcomes and operator ease. In addition to patient size and comorbidities, vessel tortuosity, significant calcification, and diminutive vessel caliber all may make iliofemoral access prohibitively high risk or impossible. Given the increase of large-bore transcatheter procedures, bleeding avoidance strategies are essential and thus novel mechanisms for large-bore access have evolved. This article highlights the advantages, limitations, and practical approaches to the 2 most common percutaneous large-bore alternative access strategies: transaxillary and transcaval access.

Endoconduit for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Access challenges are sometimes encountered in patients who require transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Transapical (TA) access is a well-established alternative, but it is more invasive than the standard transfemoral (TF) access techniques. We adopted the iliac endoconduit technique to perform TF TAVI in a patient with small-caliber, heavily calcified iliac arteries. This technique could provide an adequate access route for TAVI that is minimally invasive, even for patients with prohibitory iliac anatomy.

Expansion of TAVR into Low-Risk Patients and Who to Consider for SAVR

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) over the last decade. The results of the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) 3 and Evolut Low Risk trials demonstrated the safety and efficacy of TAVR in low-surgical-risk patients and led to the approval of TAVR for use across the risk spectrum. Heart teams around the world will now be faced with evaluating a deluge of younger, healthier patients with severe AS. Prior to the PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk studies, this heterogenous patient population would have undergone surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). It is unlikely that TAVR will completely supplant SAVR for the treatment of severe AS in patients with a low surgical risk, as SAVR has excellent short- and long-term outcomes and years of durability data. In this review, we outline the critical role that SAVR will continue to play in the treatment of severe AS in the post-PARTNER 3/Evolut Low Risk era.

Prevalence, Predictors, and Mid-Term Outcomes of Non-Home Discharge After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been widely used as a valued alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement. In cardiovascular surgeries, discharge disposition has been widely investigated. We examined the prevalence and predictors of non-home discharge after TAVI, and the prognosis based on discharge destination. Methods and Results: We retrospectively analyzed 732 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI, and divided them into 2 groups: the home group (discharged directly home; n=678 [92.6%]) and the non-home group (n=54 [7.4%]). From baseline and procedural characteristics, peripheral artery disease (PAD; odds ratio [OR] 2.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-5.97; P=0.012), previous stroke (OR 2.57; 95% CI 1.03-6.45; P=0.045), albumin level (OR 0.16 per 1-g/dL increase; 95% CI 0.07-0.39; P<0.001), and procedural stroke (OR 31.6; 95% CI 10.9-91.7; P<0.001) were independently associated with non-home discharge. In Kaplan-Meier analysis, the non-home group had worse survival than the home group (log-rank, P=0.001). In multivariate analysis, male sex, atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, and low albumin concentrations were associated with all-cause mortality, but non-home discharge was not (P=0.18). Conclusions: Non-home discharge was recorded for 7.4% of patients undergoing TAVI, and was associated with PAD, nutritional status, and previous and procedural stroke. Non-home discharge reflects worse baseline characteristics, and may be a marker of mid-term outcome after TAVI.

Simultaneous transfemoral valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement and debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair through a tortuous and shaggy aorta: a case report

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a viable treatment option for managing aortic prosthetic valve dysfunction. Although the transfemoral approach is the most commonly used and preferred treatment strategy for TAVR, complex vascular access, such as aortic aneurysm, severe tortuosity, and shaggy aorta, is challenging.

Case summary

An 87-year-old man, who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis using a 21-mm Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Valve, presented with New York Heart Association functional Class III dyspnoea. He was diagnosed as having severe symptomatic structural valve deterioration of a bioprosthetic aortic valve. Computed tomography revealed a tortuous and shaggy descending aorta with a saccular aneurysm in the aortic arch. Simultaneous transfemoral valve-in-valve TAVR and Zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with debranching were successfully performed using a 22-Fr 65-cm sheath. Although the patient developed paraplegia due to transient spinal cord ischaemia associated with TEVAR, he fully recovered with vasopressor therapy.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report on simultaneous successful 'valve-in-valve' TAVR and debranching TEVAR using the transfemoral approach. This case demonstrated the feasibility of single-stage transfemoral TAVR and TEVAR in a high-risk patient with multicomponent disease.

Comparison of Benefit of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Low Gradient Versus High Gradient Aortic Stenosis and Left Ventricular Dysfunction

Patients with low gradient severe aortic stenosis (LG-AS) often exhibit significant limitations in functional status and quality of life. We aimed to evaluate the clinical effect of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) on LG-AS patients compared to those with high transvalvular gradients and similar left ventricular dysfunction. Retrospective analysis of records for all patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction <50% who underwent TAVI at our institution was performed. Patients were grouped according to their transvalvular gradient. Data were collected from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. Clinical benefit endpoints included improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction and changes in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. Additional outcomes analyzed included 1-year all-cause mortality, stroke rates, rates of rehospitalization, need for a permanent pacemaker, and hospital length of stay. Two hundred three patients met our inclusion criteria. one hundred one LG-AS patients (mean transvalvular gradient <40 mm Hg) were compared to 102 patients with high transvalvular gradients (mean transvalvular gradient >40 mm Hg). LG-AS patients yielded similar improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (43.5% ± 63.7 vs 37.7% ± 58.7; p = 0.525) and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores (423.51% ± 1257.02 vs 266.56% ± 822.81; p = 0.352). There were no differences between the groups with respect to 1-year mortality (16.8% vs 12.7%; p = 0.412), stroke rates, hospital length of stay, need for permanent pacemaker implantation or hospital readmissions. In conclusion, we found that TAVI is associated with comparable improvement in clinical and echocardiographic outcomes in LG-AS patients as compared to those with high gradient severe aortic stenosis.

2019 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Position Statement for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or replacement has rapidly changed the treatment of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. It is now the standard of care for patients believed to be inoperable or at high surgical risk, and a reasonable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for those at intermediate surgical risk. Recent clinical trial data have shown the benefits of this technology in patients at low surgical risk as well. This update of the 2012 Canadian Cardiovascular Society TAVI position statement incorporates clinical evidence to provide a practical framework for patient selection that does not rely on surgical risk scores but rather on individual patient evaluation of risk and benefit from either TAVI or surgical aortic valve replacement. In addition, this statement features new wait time categories and treatment time goals for patients accepted for TAVI. Institutional requirements and recommendations for operator training and maintenance of competency have also been revised to reflect current standards. Procedural considerations such as decision-making for concomitant coronary intervention, antiplatelet therapy after intervention, and follow-up guidelines are also discussed. Finally, we suggest that all patients with aortic stenosis might benefit from evaluation by the heart team to determine the optimal individualized treatment decision.

Direct aortic route versus transaxillary route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The transfemoral route is contraindicated in nearly 10% of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) candidates because of unsuitable iliofemoral vessels. Transaxillary (TAx) and direct aortic (DAo) routes are the principal nonfemoral TAVR routes; however, few studies have compared their outcomes.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the rates of mortality, stroke, and other adverse events of TAx and DAo TAVR. The study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42017069788). We searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for studies reporting the outcomes of DAo or TAx TAVR in at least 10 patients. Studies that did not use the Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions were excluded. We included studies that did not directly compare the two approaches and then pooled rates of events from the included studies for comparison.

Results

In total, 31 studies were included in the quantitative meta-analysis, with 2,883 and 2,172 patients in the DAo and TAx TAVR groups, respectively. Compared with TAx TAVR, DAo TAVR had a lower Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) score, shorter fluoroscopic time, and less contrast volume use. The 30-day mortality rates were significantly higher in the DAo TAVR group (9.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [8.4–10.9]) than in the TAx TAVR group (5.7%, 95% CI = [4.8–6.8]; P for heterogeneity <0.001). DAo TAVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of stroke in the overall study population (2.6% vs. 5.8%, P for heterogeneity <0.001) and in the subgroup of studies with a mean STS score of ≥8 (1.6% vs. 6.2%, P for heterogeneity = 0.005). DAo TAVR was also associated with lower risks of permanent pacemaker implantation (12.3% vs. 20.1%, P for heterogeneity = 0.009) and valve malposition (2.0% vs. 10.2%, P for heterogeneity = 0.023) than was TAx TAVR.

Conclusions

DAo TAVR increased 30-day mortality rate compared with TAx TAVR; by contrast, TAx TAVR increased postoperative stroke, permanent pacemaker implantation, and valve malposition risks compared with DAo TAVR.

Access-Site Complications in Transfemoral Neuroendovascular Procedures: A Systematic Review of Incidence Rates and Management Strategies

BACKGROUND

The femoral artery is the most common access route for cerebral angiography and neurointerventional procedures. Complications of the transfemoral approach include groin hemorrhages and hematomas, retroperitoneal hematomas, pseudoaneurysms, arteriovenous fistulas, peripheral artery occlusions, femoral nerve injuries, and access-site infections. Incidence rates vary among different randomized and nonrandomized trials, and the literature lacks a comprehensive review of this subject.

OBJECTIVE

To gather data from 16 randomized clinical trials (RCT) and 17 nonrandomized cohort studies regarding femoral access-site complications for a review paper. We also briefly discuss management strategies for these complications based on the most recent literature.

METHODS

A PubMed indexed search for all neuroendovascular clinical trials, retrospective studies, and prospective studies that reported femoral artery access-site complications in neurointerventional procedures.

RESULTS

The overall access-site complication rate in RCTs is 5.13%, while in in non-RCTs, the rate is 2.78%. The most common complication in both groups is groin hematoma followed by access-site hemorrhage and femoral pseudoaneurysm. On the other hand, wound infection was the least common complication.

CONCLUSION

The transfemoral approach in neuroendovascular procedures holds risk for several complications. This review will allow further studies to compare access-site complications between the transfemoral approach and other alternative access sites, mainly the transradial approach, which is gaining a lot of interest nowadays.

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

To compare the outcomes in trans-femoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) performed with percutaneous approach (PC) versus surgical cut-down (SC). In 13 trials including 5,859 patients (PC = 3447, SC = 2412), the outcomes based on Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria were compared between PC and SC in TF-TAVI. Compared with SC, PC was associated with similar major vascular complications (VCs) (8.7% vs 8.5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76 to 1.15, p = 0.53), major bleeding (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.66 to 1.8, p = 0.73), perioperative mortality (5.7% vs 5.2%; OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.85 to 1.49, p = 0.4), urgent surgical repair (OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 0.81 to 2.02, p = 0.3), stroke (3.3% vs 3.9%; OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.36, p = 0.5), myocardial infarction (1.3% vs 1.1%; OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.53 to 2.12, p = 0.86), and renal failure (5.2% vs 5.9%; OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.38 to 1.22, p = 0.2), but shorter hospital stay (9.1 ± 8.5 vs 9.6 ± 9.5 days; mean difference = -1.07 day, 95% CI = -2.0 to -0.15, p = 0.02) and less blood transfusion (18.5% vs 25.7%; OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.43-0.86, p = 0.005). Minor VCs occurred more frequently in PC compared to SC (11.9% vs 6.9%; OR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.04-2.67, p = 0.03). In conclusion, in TF-TAVI, PC is a safe and feasible alternative to SC, and adopting either approach depends on operator experience after ensuring that vascular access could be safely achieved with that specific technique.

Should All Low-risk Patients Now Be Considered for TAVR? Operative Risk, Clinical, and Anatomic Considerations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the current data on TAVR in low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis, highlights the results of the recently published Medtronic Low Risk Randomized Study and PARTNER 3 trials, and describes specific clinical, anatomic, and procedural considerations regarding the optimal treatment choice in this population.

RECENT FINDINGS

In low-risk patients, the Medtronic Low Risk Randomized Study demonstrated TAVR to be non-inferior to surgery with respect to the composite endpoint of death or disabling stroke while PARTNER 3 trial proved TAVR to be superior to surgery with regard to the composite endpoint of death, stroke, or rehospitalization. Recent trials demonstrate the safety and efficacy of TAVR in low-risk patients and have led to an FDA indication for the use of TAVR in these patients. However, the lack of long-term data on the rate of transcatheter valve deterioration in the younger population, higher incidence of paravalvular leak and pacemaker implantation following TAVR, along with certain intrinsic anatomic factors remain potential challenges to generalize TAVR in all low surgical risk patients. We describe specific clinical, anatomic, and procedural considerations regarding the optimal treatment choice for low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic AS.

TAVI and the future of aortic valve replacement

Aortic valve stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular pathology and has traditionally been managed using surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). A large proportion of affected patient demographics, however, are unfit to undergo major surgery given underlying comorbidities. Since its introduction in 2002, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has gained popularity and transformed the care available to different-risk group patients with severe symptomatic AS. Specific qualifying criteria and refinement of TAVI techniques are fundamental in determining successful outcomes for intervention. Given the successful applicability in high-risk patients, TAVI has been further developed and trialed in intermediate and low-risk patients. Within intermediate-risk patient groups, TAVI was shown to be noninferior to SAVR evaluating 30-d mortality and secondary endpoints such as the risk of bleeding, development of acute kidney injury, and length of admission. The feasibility of expanding TAVI procedures into low-risk patients is still a controversial topic in the literature. A number of trials have recently been published which demonstrate TAVI as noninferior and even superior over SAVR for primary study endpoints.

Baseline significant tricuspid regurgitation is associated with higher mortality in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: systemic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Significant tricuspid regurgitation is a well recognized indicator of right ventricular dysfunction. Recent studies have shown that significant tricuspid regurgitation is potentially associated with increased mortality in patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, data remained sparse and inconclusive. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to assess the association between significant tricuspid regurgitation and mortality in post TAVR patients.

HYPOTHESIS

Significant tricuspid regurgitation is predictive for higher mortality in patients undergoing TAVR.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched the databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to October 2018. Included studies were published observational studies that reported multivariate analysis of the effects of significant tricuspid regurgitation on all-cause mortality among patients undergoing TAVR. Data from each study were combined utilizing the random-effects, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Nine cohort studies from August 2011 to May 2018 consisting of 27 614 patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR (6255 with and 21 359 without significant tricuspid regurgitation) were included in this meta-analysis. The presence of significant tricuspid regurgitation was associated with higher all-cause mortality (pooled OR = 2.26, 95% CI: 1.45-3.52, P < 0.001). We found that all-cause mortality remained statistically substantial in all subgroups (30-day all-cause mortality: OR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.20-3.49, P = 0.009; midterm all-cause mortality: OR = 9.67, 95% CI: 2.44-38.31, P = 0.001; and long-term all-cause mortality: OR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.19-1.85, P < 0.001). Funnel plots and Egger's regression asymmetry test were performed and showed no publication bias.

CONCLUSION

Significant tricuspid regurgitation increased risk of mortality by up to two-fold among patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR. Our study suggests that significant tricuspid regurgitation should be considered a component of risk stratification tools.

Comparison of early and midterm outcomes after transsubclavian/axillary versus transfemoral, transapical, or transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Outcomes after transsubclavian/transaxillary (TSc/TAx)-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have been unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To compare outcomes after TSc/TAx-TAVI versus transfemoral (TF)-TAVI, transapical (TAp)-TAVI, or transaortic (TAo)-TAVI, we performed meta-analysis of currently available studies.

METHODS

Studies considered for inclusion met the following criteria: the study population was patients undergoing TAVI; patients were assigned to TSc/TAx-TAVI and TF-TAVI, TAp-TAVI, or TAo-TAVI; and at least one of postprocedural early (30-day or in-hospital) or late (including early) outcomes was reported. An odds or hazard ratio of each early or late outcome with its 95% confidence interval for TSc/TAx-TAVI versus the other approach was extracted from each individual study and combined in the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Our search identified 15 eligible reports from 12 studies including 10,528 patients. Pooled analysis of early all-cause mortality demonstrated a statistically significant reduction after TSc/TAx-TAVI compared with TAp-TAVI (P = 0.003) or TAo-TAVI (P = 0.03). Pooled analysis of early pacemaker implantation demonstrated a statistically significant increase after TSc/TAx-TAVI compared with TAp-TAVI (P = 0.0001) or TAo-TAVI (P < 0.00001). Pooled analysis of midterm all-cause mortality demonstrated a statistically significant increase after TSc/TAx-TAVI compared with TF-TAVI (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Early all-cause mortality was lower after TSc/TAx-TAVI than TAp-TAVI or TAo-TAVI, early pacemaker implantation was more frequent after TSc/TAx-TAVI than TAp-TAVI or TAo-TAVI, and midterm all-cause mortality was higher after TSc/TAx-TAVI than TF-TAVI.