Trans-apical and trans-axillary percutaneous aortic valve implantation as alternatives to the femoral route: short- and middle-term results

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.

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

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

Comparison of Transfemoral versus Transsubclavian/Transaxillary access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Femoral access is the gold standard for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Safe alternative access, that represents about 15 % of TAVR cases, remains important for patients without adequate transfemoral access. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing transfemoral (TF) access versus transsubclavian or transaxillary (TSc/TAx) access in patients undergoing TAVR. We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL Register, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception through May 24, 2022) for studies comparing (TF) to (TSc/TAx) access for TAVR. A total of 21 studies with 75,995 unique patients who underwent TAVR (73,203 transfemoral and 2,792 TSc/TAx) were included in the analysis. There was no difference in the risk of in-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality between the two groups (RR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.36-1.13, P = 0.12) and (RR 0.95, 95 % CI 0.64-1.41, P = 0.81), while 1-year mortality was significantly lower in the TF TAVR group (RR 0.79, 95 % CI 0.67-0.93, P = 0.005). No significant differences in major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95 % CI 0.65-1.03, P = 0.09), major vascular complications (RR 1.14, 95 % CI 0.75-1.72, P = 0.53), and stroke (RR 0.66, 95 % CI 0.42-1.02, P = 0.06) were observed. In patients undergoing TAVR, TF access is associated with significantly lower 1-year mortality compared to TSc/TAx access without differences in major bleeding, major vascular complications and stroke. While TF is the preferred approach for TAVR, TSc/TAx is a safe alternative approach. Future studies should confirm these findings, preferably in a randomized setting.

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.

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.

The Transaxillary Route as a Second Access Option in TAVI Procedures: Experience of a Single Centre

Background: The aim of our study was to determine the feasibility and efficacy of transaxillary (TAX) TAVI in patients not eligible for the transfemoral route. Methods: This is a retrospective study of a single center. We analysed 262 patients treated with TAVI. In 17 patients (6.5%), the procedure was performed with the TAX approach. Procedural and hospital data, 30-day safety, and clinical efficacy were assessed and compared between the transfemoral and TAX groups. Results: In the TAX groups, we found a higher prevalence of men (p = 0.001), smokers (p = 0.033), and previous strokes (p = 0.02). The EUROSCORE II was higher in the TAX group (p = 0.014). The success rate of the device was 100%. TAX was associated with a longer procedure time (p = 0.001) and shorter median device time (p = 0.034) in minutes. Patients treated with TAX had a longer hospital stay (p = 0.005) and higher overall bleeding rate (p = 0.001). Peripheral neurological complications were more frequent with TAX (p = 0.001), which almost completely resolved by 30 days. Conclusions: TAX TAVI is safe and effective and should be considered as a second choice when transfemoral TAVI is not feasible due to severe comorbidities.

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.

Clinical Outcome and Safety of Transcaval Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement as Compared to Other Alternative Approaches

Background: A small proportion of patients in need of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are not suitable for the transfemoral approach due to peripheral artery disease. Alternative TAVR approaches are associated with short- and long-term hazards. A novel technique of caval-aortic (transcaval) access for TAVR has been utilized as an alternative access technique.

Aim: To compare safety and efficacy of transcaval access as compared to other alternative access (axillary or apical) for TAVR.

Methods: A single-center, retrospective analysis of consecutive patients undergoing alternative access for TAVR. Events were adjudicated according to VARC-2 criteria.

Results: A total of 185 patients were included in the present analysis. Mean age was 81 years with a small majority for male gender (54%). Of the entire cohort, 20 patients (12%) underwent transcaval TAVR, and 165 patients (82%) underwent TAVR using alternative access. Overall, baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. General anesthesia was not utilized in transcaval patients; however, it was routinely used in nearly all alternative access patients. TAVR device success was comparable between the two groups (95%). Acute kidney injury occurred significantly less frequently among transcaval patients as compared to alternative access patients (5 vs. 12%, p = 0.05). Hospital stay was shorter for transcaval patients (6.3 days vs. 14.4; p < 0.001). No difference in early or 30-day mortality (10 vs. 7.9%, p = 0.74) was noted between groups.

Conclusions: In patients who cannot undergo TAVR via the trans-femoral approach due to peripheral vascular disease, transcaval access is a safe approach as compared to other alternative access techniques, with lower risk of kidney injury and shorter hospital stay.

Percutaneous transAXillary access for endovascular aortic procedures in the multicenter international PAXA registry

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of a suture-mediated vascular closure device to perform hemostasis after an axillary artery access during endovascular procedures on the aortic valve, the aorta and its side branches.

METHODS

A physician-initiated, international, multicenter, retrospective registry was designed to evaluate the success rate (VARC-2 reporting standards) of percutaneous transaxillary access closure with a suture-mediated closure device. Secondary end points were minor access vascular complications, transient peripheral nerve injury, stroke, and influence on periprocedural outcomes of puncture technique.

RESULTS

Three hundred thirty-one patients (median age, 76 years; 69.2% males) in 11 centers received a percutaneous transaxillary access during endovascular cardiac (n = 166) or vascular (n = 165) procedures. The closure success rate was 84.6%, with 5 open conversions (1.5%), 45 adjunctive endovascular procedures (13.6%), and 1 nerve injury (0.3%). Secondary closure success was obtained in 325 patients (98%) after 7 bare stenting, 37 covered stenting, and 1 thrombin injection. Introducer sheaths 16F or larger (odds ratio, 3.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-11.42) and balloon-assisted hemostasis (odds ratio, 4.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-15.68) were associated with closure failure. A threshold of five percutaneous axillary accesses was associated with decreased rates of open conversion, but not with increased primary closure success. Primary closure success was 90.3% in the 175 patients with sheaths smaller than 16F, performed after the first 5 procedures in each center. Temporary nerve injury and stroke were observed in 2% and 4% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous transaxillary aortic procedures, in selected patients, can be performed with low rates of open conversion. The need for additional endovascular bailout procedures is not negligible when introducers sheaths 16F or larger are required.

Renal protection of transaxillary/subclavian accesses for transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with impossible femoral access

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common postoperative complication after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). In patients with ineligible femoral access, transaxillary/subclavian (TAx/TSc) might be competitive alternative access. With nine cohort studies and 4995 patients, we found that TAx/TSc access was associated with decreased incidences of AKI (Relative risk [RR]: 0.573, 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.456-0.718, p < .001) and stage 3 AKI (RR 0.460, 95%CI 0.318-0.665, p < .001) by comparison with intrathoracic approaches. Our findings suggest that TAx/TSc is associated with a reduced AKI risk after TAVR in patients with impossible femoral access.

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

Background

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

Methods and Results

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

Conclusions

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

Safety and efficacy of transaxillary transcatheter aortic valve replacement using a current-generation balloon-expandable valve

Background

Transaxillary access (TAx) has shown promise as an excellent alternative TAVR option, but data on the Edwards SAPIEN 3 in TAx-TAVR is limited. We sought to study the safety and efficacy of TAx-TAVR using this current-generation balloon-expandable valve.

Methods

A retrospective study of our first 24 TAx and 20 transthoracic (TT) TAVR patients treated with the SAPIEN 3 valve was performed, and the patients’ preoperative characteristics, procedural outcomes, and clinical outcomes were compared to our first 100 transfemoral (TF) patients using the SAPIEN 3 device.

Results

There were no statistical differences observed for outcomes between the TAx and TF groups, despite the TAx patients having more comorbidities (STS-PROM 11.3 ± 7.6 versus 7.3 ± 5.2, p = 0.042). In addition, no significant difference was found in the fluoroscopy time and contrast amount between the two groups. The patients’ baseline characteristics were similar between the TAx and TT groups. Their procedural and clinical outcomes were comparable, but there was a trend towards lower incidence of acute kidney injury (13.0% versus 23.5%), new-onset atrial fibrillation (5.6% versus 33.3%), shorter median length of stay postoperatively (4 versus 6 days), fewer discharges to rehabilitation (16.7% versus 35.0%), and a lower rate of readmission within 30-days (8.3% versus 35.0%), all favoring TAx access.

Conclusions

TAx-TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve is a safe alternative to TF access. It offers advantages of improved recovery over TT access, and appears to be a superior alternative-access option for TAVR. TAx access could be preferred when TF access is not feasible.

A meta-analysis comparing transaxillary and transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Background

While transfemoral (TF) approach is considered as the default access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the alternative access route of choice remains to be elucidated. Transaxillary (TAx) approach has shown promise as an excellent option. We performed a meta-analysis of the studies comparing the TF and TAx approaches using one type of self-expandable transcatheter valve to avoid device-related bias.

Methods

We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 2018 to identify articles comparing TAx-TAVR and TF-TAVR. The studies included in this meta-analysis contain data related to the use of the CoreValve device. Patients' baseline characteristics, procedural outcomes, and clinical outcomes were extracted from the articles and pooled for analysis.

Results

The meta-analysis included five studies comprising 1,414 patients in the TF group and 489 patients in the TAx group. The average EuroScores of the TF and TAx groups were 20.04±13.89 and 22.73±14.73, respectively. The TAx group has higher rates of major comorbidities. No difference was found between the two groups with regard to vascular complications (P=0.71; OR 1.08; 95% CI, 0.71-1.65), aortic regurgitation (P=0.90; OR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.71-1.49), and permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation (P=0.42; OR 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.46). The TAx group has a lower incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) (P=0.05; OR 1.63; 95% CI, 1.01-2.62). No difference was observed in 30-day mortality (P=0.32; OR 1.30; 95% CI, 0.78-2.17) or 1-year mortality (P=0.21; OR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.50-1.16).

Conclusions

TAx-TAVR is associated with overall comparable outcomes to TF TAVR in high-risk patient cohorts, despite higher incidences of major comorbidities in the TAx-TAVR patient population. The rate of AKI appears to be lower after TAx-TAVR.

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.

Health-related quality of life following transcatheter aortic valve implantation using transaortic, transfemoral approaches and surgical aortic valve replacement-a single-center study

Objective

To evaluate short- and long-term changes in quality of life (QoL) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and to assess differences in patient QoL when using the TAVI transaortic (TAVI TAo) approach compared with the transfemoral approach (TAVI TF) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Methods

Ninety-seven patients were assessed. Thirty-two patients underwent TAVI TAo, 31 underwent TAVI TF and 34 patients underwent SAVR. QoL was assessed using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire at baseline, after one month and one year.

Results

Mean patient age was 80 years (range, 61–92 years) and the mean logistic EuroSCORE was 12.45% (range, 1.39%–78.98%). Declared health state at baseline was significantly lower in TAVI TF (P < 0.001) and after one month there were no differences between the three groups (P = 0.99). After one year, SAVR patient results of the EQ-5D-3L index value were lower in comparison to both TAVI patient groups (P < 0.05). The analysis also showed significant differences between the results of EQ-5D-3L index value over the one month and one year follow-up (TAVI TAo, P < 0.001; TAVI TF, P < 0.05; SAVR, P < 0.05). In all groups, the values significantly increased after one-month and one-year of follow-up in comparison to baseline value. Significant differences were also demonstrated between Visual Analogue Scale values (VAS).

Conclusions

A significant improvement in QoL was observed in all three patient groups. Regardless of the TAVI approach, EQ-5D-3L and VAS values were significantly increased after one-month and one-year follow up; the SAVR patients however, reported lower health status when compared to the TAVI patients.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation despite challenging vascular access

We describe transcatheter aortic valve implantation in a patient who had severe peripheral artery disease. The patient's vascular condition required additional preliminary peripheral intervention to enable adequate vascular access. A 78-year-old man with severe aortic stenosis, substantial comorbidities, and severe heart failure symptoms was referred for aortic valve replacement. The patient's 20-mm aortic annulus necessitated the use of a 23-mm Edwards Sapien valve inserted through a 22F sheath, which itself needed a vessel diameter of at least 7 mm for percutaneous delivery. The left common femoral artery was selected for valve delivery. The left iliac artery and infrarenal aorta underwent extensive intervention to achieve an intraluminal diameter larger than 7 mm. After aortic valvuloplasty, valve deployment was successful, and the transaortic gradient decreased from 40 mmHg to less than 5 mmHg. The patient was discharged from the hospital 4 days postoperatively. We conclude that transcatheter aortic valve implantation can be successfully performed in patients with obstructed vascular access, including stenosis of the infrarenal aorta and the subclavian and coronary arteries.

Transapical angiography in a patient with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TA-TAVI) is the method of choice in patients with severe stenosis of the aortic valve, high operative risk, and an adverse peripheral vasculature. The procedure is generally guided by peripheral arterial access angiography. We report on a 71-year-old patient in whom, because of the absence of an alternative peripheral arterial access route, TA-TAVI was supported by the apical insertion of the angiography catheter. This approach was effective and safe, and proper valve deployment was feasible without unexpected procedural complications.

A systematic review of transapical aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) through a transapical approach (TAAVI) for severe aortic stenosis becomes the procedure of choice in cases where patients have peripheral artery disease and unfeasible access due to excessive atherosclerotic disease of the iliofemoral vessels and aorta. The present systematic review aimed to assess the safety, success rate, clinical outcomes, hemodynamic outcomes, and survival benefits of TAAVI.

METHODS

Electronic searches were performed in 6 databases from January 2000 to February 2012. The primary end points included feasibility and safety. Other end points included echocardiographic findings, functional class improvement, and survival.

RESULTS

After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 48 out of 154 shortlisted potentially relevant articles were selected for assessment. Of these, 26 studies from 24 centers including total number of 2,807 patients were included for appraisal and data extraction. The current evidence on TAAVI for aortic stenosis is limited to observational studies. Successful TAAVI implantation occurred in >90% of patients. On average, the procedure took between 64 to 154 minutes to complete. The incidence of major adverse events included 30-day mortality (4.7-20.8%); cerebrovascular accident (0-16.3%); major tachyarrhythmia (0-48.8%); bradyarrhythmia requiring permanent pacemaker insertion (0-18.7%); cardiac tamponade (0-11%); major bleeding (1-17%); myocardial infarction (0-6%); aortic dissection/rupture (0-5%); moderate to severe paravalvular leak (0.7-24%); cardiopulmonary bypass support (0-15%); conversion to surgery (0-9.5%); and valve-in-valve implantation (0.6-8%). Mean aortic valve area improved from 0.4-0.7 cm(2) before TAAVI to 1.4-2.1 cm(2) after TAAVI. The peak pressure gradient across the aortic valve decreased from >70 mmHg to <20 mmHg after TAAVI. One-year survival ranged from 49.3% to 82% and the 3-year survival was 58% in 2 series.

CONCLUSIONS

TAAVI appears to be feasible with a reasonable safety and efficacy portfolio. Randomised controlled trials are required to compare transapical vs. transfemoral TAVI when both techniques are equally feasible.

Cardiac conduction system disease after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a rapidly-evolving technology for patients with severe, calcific aortic stenosis. Although these procedures lessen many of the risks and complications of open surgical aortic valve replacement, there remain challenges with TAVR including electrophysiologic complications. Among TAVR prostheses, rates of conduction abnormalities (CAs) vary from less than 10% to more than 50%, with up to one-third of patients requiring placement of a permanent pacemaker following TAVR. Several predictors of CAs have been identified related to device selection, baseline conduction defects, and anatomical considerations. Current data support the hypothesis that CAs result primarily from mechanical compression of the specialized conduction system by the device, although other factors may be involved. Such abnormalities can arise immediately during the procedure or as late as several days after implantation, and can be transient or permanent. Currently, there are no clinical tools to identify patients at highest risk for CAs post-TAVR, or to predict the course of CAs in patients who experience them. Early data suggest outcomes may be worse in high-risk patients, and further studies are needed to identify these patients so as to minimize electrophysiologic complications and determine appropriate monitoring in this expanding population.

Transcutaneous aortic valve implantation using the axillary/subclavian access with patent left internal thoracic artery to left anterior descending artery: feasibility and early clinical outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Both retrograde femoral and subclavian artery catheterization techniques have been described as the most common methods for the implantation of the Medtronic CoreValve percutaneous aortic valve (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minn). The subclavian artery has been shown to be a safe and effective alternative access route in patients with unfavorable femoral access. Of the patients who are identified as candidates for subclavian artery access, a subset possess a patent left internal thoracic artery to left anterior descending artery. This patent left internal thoracic artery presents an additional anatomic and clinical variable that must be taken into consideration to ensure procedural safety and efficacy. We describe the Medtronic CoreValve percutaneous aortic valve implantation using the subclavian arterial approach in patients with a patent left internal thoracic artery and report our study's findings.

METHODS

The CoreValve percutaneous aortic valve is a self-expandable nitinol-based frame with a porcine pericardial valve. The subclavian access was created by a small infraclavicular surgical incision to expose the artery. Rapid ventricular pacing was used to reduce cardiac output to perform the balloon aortic valvuloplasty via a 12F sheath inserted into the subclavian artery. An 18F sheath was then inserted into the artery down into the ascending aorta and used for introduction of the delivery catheter and implantation of the percutaneous aortic valve.

RESULTS

With the use of this method, 19 patients (76 ± 13 years) whose surgical risk was deemed excessive because of severe comorbidity and in whom transfemoral catheterization was considered unfeasible or at risk of severe complications have received implants. Subclavian artery or left internal thoracic artery injury did not occur in any patient. Two deaths occurred. One patient died of right coronary artery occlusion during the procedure, and one patient died 48 hours after the procedure as the result of a tamponade after the temporary pacemaker wire ablation.

CONCLUSIONS

This initial experience suggests that subclavian transarterial aortic valve implantation in patients with a patent left internal thoracic artery to left anterior descending artery is feasible and safe with satisfactory short-term outcomes.

Transaxillary Approach Short- and Mid-Term Results in a Single-Center Experience

Objective

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is increasingly accepted as an alternative procedure in patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement. Transfemoral (TF) approach is the first option when feasible, but in case of peripheral vascular disease this approach is precluded. In our institution, for this kind of patients we considered transaxillary (TAx) approach as second choice and transapical (TAp) or transaortic (TAa) as last routes. This study describes short- and mid-term morbidity and mortality for TAx approach.

Methods

From November 2007 to March 2011, 284 patients underwent TAVI at our site; 229 treated by TF approach, 22 TAp, 2 TAa, and 31 TAx. Four patients were treated with an Edwards Sapien valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Inc., Irvine, CA USA) with TAx approach and 27 with CoreValve Revalving System (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN USA). TAx TAVI was performed in cath-laboratory with local anesthesia and mild sedation by a multispeciality valve team. We analyzed major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, major adverse valve-related events, vascular complications, and 30 days and 6 months mortality.

Results

The procedural success rate (successful implantation of the device without intraprocedural mortality or need to conversion to open heart surgery) was 96.8% (30/31). Major adverse valve-related events were 12.9% (4/31). 30-day mortality was 6.4% (2/31) and actuarial survival at 6 months was 82.95% ± 7.96%. In one patient, procedure was converted to a TF CoreValve in emergency for hemodynamic instability after valvuloplasty due to severe difficulty to introduce the Edwards valve in the subclavian artery.

Conclusions

TAx approach is a feasible and technically simple procedure with encouraging results considering morbidity and mortality at short- and mid-term follow-up. TAx is a valid solution in patients with contraindications to TF approach and it is an alternative approach potentially less invasive than TAp or TAa.