Nontransfemoral Approaches to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The Technological Basis of a Balloon-Expandable TAVR System: Non-occlusive Deployment, Anchorage in the Absence of Calcification and Polymer Leaflets

Leaflet durability and costs restrict contemporary trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) largely to elderly patients in affluent countries. TAVR that are easily deployable, avoid secondary procedures and are also suitable for younger patients and non-calcific aortic regurgitation (AR) would significantly expand their global reach. Recognizing the reduced need for post-implantation pacemakers in balloon-expandable (BE) TAVR and the recent advances with potentially superior leaflet materials, a trans-catheter BE-system was developed that allows tactile, non-occlusive deployment without rapid pacing, direct attachment of both bioprosthetic and polymer leaflets onto a shape-stabilized scallop and anchorage achieved by plastic deformation even in the absence of calcification. Three sizes were developed from nickel-cobalt-chromium MP35N alloy tubes: Small/23 mm, Medium/26 mm and Large/29 mm. Crimp-diameters of valves with both bioprosthetic (sandwich-crosslinked decellularized pericardium) and polymer leaflets (triblock polyurethane combining siloxane and carbonate segments) match those of modern clinically used BE TAVR. Balloon expansion favors the wing-structures of the stent thereby creating supra-annular anchors whose diameter exceeds the outer diameter at the waist level by a quarter. In the pulse duplicator, polymer and bioprosthetic TAVR showed equivalent fluid dynamics with excellent EOA, pressure gradients and regurgitation volumes. Post-deployment fatigue resistance surpassed ISO requirements. The radial force of the helical deployment balloon at different filling pressures resulted in a fully developed anchorage profile of the valves from two thirds of their maximum deployment diameter onwards. By combining a unique balloon-expandable TAVR system that also caters for non-calcific AR with polymer leaflets, a powerful, potentially disruptive technology for heart valve disease has been incorporated into a TAVR that addresses global needs. While fulfilling key prerequisites for expanding the scope of TAVR to the vast number of patients of low- to middle income countries living with rheumatic heart disease the system may eventually also bring hope to patients of high-income countries presently excluded from TAVR for being too young.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement via a transsubclavian approach in a patient with severe aortic stenosis who had previously undergone kidney transplantation: A case report

RATIONALE

Although the transfemoral approach is the gold standard for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), it is not feasible in a considerable number of patients. We report a case of successful transsubclavian TAVR (TS-TAVR) in a patient with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who was ineligible for transfemoral TAVR because she was a kidney transplant recipient.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 72-year-old Korean woman, who had previously undergone kidney transplantation in the right iliac fossa for end-stage kidney disease, was admitted to our center with dyspnea. Upon auscultation, grade IV systolic murmurs were detected in both upper sternal borders and the left lower sternal border, suggestive of valvular heart disease.

DIAGNOSIS

Two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography revealed heavy calcification of the aortic valve with a high peak velocity (4.54 m/s) and mean pressure gradient (48.49 mm Hg), indicative of severe AS.

INTERVENTIONS

TS-TAVR was performed by a heart team comprised of interventional cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, and anesthesiologists. A self-expandable valve prosthesis (CoreValveTM Evolut RTM, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN) was successfully deployed via the left subclavian artery.

OUTCOMES

Post-TAVR 2-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography demonstrated a well-functioning valve with mild paravalvular leakage. The peak velocity had declined from 4.54 m/s to 2.22 to 2.24 m/s, and the mean pressure gradient had declined from 48.49 to 8.57-9.61 mmHg. The patient was discharged successfully and uneventfully.

LESSONS

Because kidney transplant recipients with severe AS are considered poor candidates for transfemoral TAVR, TS-TAVR is a suitable alternative to consider.

Short- and Mid-Term Outcomes in Patients Deemed Inoperable Undergoing Transapical and Transfemoral TAVR with an STS-PROM below Four Percent

Transapical (TA) TAVR is known to be associated with increased mortality and vascular complications compared with transfemoral (TF) TAVR in high-risk and inoperable patients. However, safe alternative access methods remain crucial. We aimed to (1) evaluate the 30-day and 1-year outcomes comparing TA and TF TAVR in patients with an STS-PROM of <4% deemed inoperable and (2) determine dependent and independent predictors for all-cause one-year mortality. Data were collected from a single-center registry consisting of 340 eligible patients. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed (n = 50 TA, n = 50 TF). Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality, stroke, and major bleeding. Predictors for all-cause one-year mortality were evaluated. Thirty-day mortality (TF vs. TA: 0.0% vs. 4.0%; p = 0.153) was comparable in both cohorts. One-year all-cause mortality was twice as high in TA patients (TF vs. TA: 10.0% vs. 20.0%, p logrank = 0.165, HR 2.10). Cerebrovascular events and major bleeding during one-year follow-up were similar. The multivariate analysis identified hemoglobin <12 g/dL at admission and dual antiplatelet therapy as strong predictors for one-year mortality. Although femoral access is the primary access with favorable 30-day and 1-year results, transapical access was successful for patients unsuitable for TF TAVR, showing acceptable short- and mid-term results in inoperable patients with low-risk profiles.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with a focus on transcarotid: a review of the current literature

Valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis has undergone a huge paradigm shift in the recent years in terms of procedural details and vascular access site for patients who have poor peripheral access. Carotid artery is one of the more promising access sites which has been proven to provide a good alternative site with comparable outcomes to transfemoral approach. In this manuscript, we will provide a review of the current literature on transaortic, transapical, transaxillary and transcarotid approaches to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) while focusing on the transcarotid approach.

Non-transfemoral access sites for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transfemoral access is currently the standard and preferred access site for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), though novel approaches are emerging to expand treatment options for the increasing numbers of patients with a contraindication for the traditional route. Previous publications have provided comparisons between two TAVR access sites, primarily transfemoral versus one of the novel approaches, while others have compared three or four novel approaches. The aim of this report is to provide a comprehensive summary of publications that analyse and compare the six non-transfemoral access sites currently described in the literature. These include the transapical, transaortic, axillary/subclavian, brachiocephalic, transcarotid, and transcaval approaches. Though there remains little consensus as to the superiority or non-inferiority of TAVR approaches, and there has yet to be randomized clinical trials to support published findings, with careful patient and procedural selection, outcomes for novel approaches have been reported to be comparable to standard transfemoral access when performed by skilled physicians. As such, choice of procedure is primarily based on registry data and the judgement of surgical teams as to which approach is best in each individual case. As TAVR continues to be an increasingly widespread treatment, search for the optimal access site will grow, and focus should be placed on the importance of educating surgeons as to all possible approaches so they may review and chose the most appropriate technique for a given patient.

Does a Higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons Score Predict Outcomes in Transfemoral and Alternative Access Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement?

BACKGROUND

Nontransfemoral (non-TF) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is often associated with worse outcomes than TF TAVR. We investigated the relationship between increasing Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) predicted risk of mortality (PROM) score and observed mortality and morbidity in TF and non-TF TAVR groups.

METHODS

We reviewed 595 patients undergoing TAVR at Emory Healthcare between 2007 and 2014. Clinical outcomes were reported for 337 TF patients (57%) and 258 non-TF patients (43%). We created 3 STS PROM score subgroups: <8%, 8%-15%, and >15%. A composite outcome of postoperative events was defined as death, stroke, renal failure, vascular complications, or new pacemaker implantation.

RESULTS

TF patients were older (82.4 ± 8.0 vs 80.8 ± 8.7 years, p = 0.02), whereas the STS PROM was higher in non-TF patients (10.5% ± 5.3% vs 11.7% ± 5.7%, p = 0.01). Observed/expected mortality was less than 1.0 in all groups. The rate of the composite outcome did not differ between STS PROM subgroups in TF (p = 0.68) or non-TF TAVR (p = 0.27). One-year mortality was higher for patients with STS PROM >8% in the non-TF group; however, this difference was not observed in TF patients (p = 0.40).

CONCLUSIONS

As expected, non-TF patients were at a higher risk than TF patients for procedural morbidity and death. Although no differences were observed in 30-day deaths or morbidity in different STS PROM subgroups, those undergoing non-TF TAVR at a higher STS PROM (>8%) had higher 1-year mortality. When applicable, TF TAVR remains the procedure of choice in high- or extreme-risk patients undergoing TAVR.