Transcervical approach versus transfemoral approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

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

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

Transcarotid vascular access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: is choosing the left side always right?

BACKGROUND

The transcarotid (TC) vascular access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as the first-choice alternative to the transfemoral access, in patients unsuitable for the latter. The use of both the left and right common carotid arteries (CCAs) for TC-TAVI has been described, but the optimal side is subject to debate. We conducted this pilot study to compare the level of vessel tortuosity and plaque burden from either the left CCA to the aortic annulus, or the right CCA to the aortic annulus, considering them as surrogates for technical and procedural complexity.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent TC-TAVI between 2018 and 2021 in our institution were included. Using three-dimensional reconstruction, pre-TAVI neck and chest computed tomography angiography exams were reviewed to assess the tortuosity index (TI), sum of angles metric, as well as plaque burden, between each CCA and the aortic annulus.

RESULTS

We included 46 patients who underwent TC-TAVI. No significant difference regarding the mean TIs between the left and right sides (respectively 1.20 and 1.19, p = 0.82), the mean sum of angles (left side: 396°, right side: 384°, p = 0.27), and arterial plaque burden (arterial plaque found in 30% of left CCAs and 45% of right CCAs, p = 0.19) was found.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no convincing data favoring the use of one particular access side over the other one. The choice of the CCA side in TC-TAVI should to be made on a case-by-case basis, in a multidisciplinary fashion, and may also depend on the operators' experience.

Transcaval versus Supra-Aortic Vascular Accesses for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

A growing body of evidence suggests that extrathoracic vascular accesses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) yield favorable outcomes and can be considered as primary alternatives when the gold-standard transfemoral access is contraindicated. Data comparing the transcaval (TCv) to supra-aortic (SAo) approaches (transcarotid, transsubclavian, and transaxillary) for TAVR are lacking. We aimed to compare the outcomes and safety of TCv and SAo accesses for TAVR as alternatives to transfemoral TAVR. A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed by searching PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for all articles comparing TCv-TAVR against SAo-TAVR published until September 2023. Outcomes included in-hospital or 30-day all-cause mortality (ACM) and postoperative complications. A total of three studies with 318 TCv-TAVR and 179 SAo-TAVR patients were included. No statistically significant difference was found regarding in-hospital or 30-day ACM (relative risk [RR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-2.34, p = 0.91), major bleeding, the need for blood transfusions, major vascular complications, and acute kidney injury. TCv-TAVR was associated with a non-statistically significant lower rate of neurovascular complications (RR 0.39, 95%CI 0.14-1.09, p = 0.07). These results suggest that both approaches may be considered as first-line alternatives to transfemoral TAVR, depending on local expertise and patients' anatomy. Additional data from long-term cohort studies are needed.

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.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Using the Transcervical Vascular Access (from a 7-Year Experience from a Swiss Tertiary Center)

The gold-standard transfemoral (TF) access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is not suitable in 10% to 15% of patients, and alternative accesses are needed. Studies have suggested that the transcervical (TC) access might yield outcomes comparable to the TF access. In our center, TC-TAVI is the first-line alternative to TF-TAVI. We herein present our 7-year experience regarding the use of the TC access in TAVI. We included all consecutive patients referred for TC-TAVI between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2022. Data regarding the patients' characteristics,perioperative and 30-day outcomes were prospectively collected. Patients were separated into 2 temporal groups (group 1: January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2019; group 2: July 1, 2019 to December 31, 2022) to assess the changes of their characteristics and outcomes over time. A total of 95 patients were included, with more belonging to group 2 (n = 56 vs n = 39 in group 1). Patients in group 2 were significantly younger (81.0 [interquartile range 77.0 to 87.0] vs 89.0 [interquartile range 83.0 to 92.0] years, p <0.001) and had a higher prevalence of hypertension (87.5% vs 66.7%, p = 0.028) and chronic pulmonary disease (35.7% vs 15.4%, p = 0.029). There was no significant difference regarding other co-morbidities or surgical scores. All-cause mortality and the risk of stroke at 30 days were low and similar (group 2 vs group 1, 3.6% vs 2.5%, p = 0.787 and 1.8% vs 0%, p = 0.397, respectively), as were the risks of permanent pacemaker implantation, postoperative acute kidney injury, cardiac tamponade, life-threatening bleeding, and major vascular complications. In conclusion, the use of the TC access increased over time. The rates of adverse events did not change, despite patients from mid-2019 onward having slightly more co-morbidities.

Combined approach of carotid endarteriectomy and transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve implantation as a minimally invasive one-step treatment of aortic stenosis: a case report

Background

Despite the gold-standard approach for transaortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains transfemoral (TF), alternative approaches are needed in patients who present contraindications to transfemoral access.

Case summary

We report the case of a 79-year-old female with a symptomatic high-gradient severe aortic stenosis-mean gradient of 43 mmHg-and a significant supra-aortic trunk stenosis (left carotid artery: 90-99%; right carotid artery: 50-70%), and who was hospitalized for progressive dyspnoea New York Heart Association (NYHA) stage III. In this high-risk patient, it was decided to perform a TAVI. Because of a history of stenting of both common iliac arteries in a context of an arterial insufficiency of the lower limbs (Leriche classification stage III) and stenotic thoraco-abdominal aorta atheromatosis, an alternative approach to the transfemoral transaortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) one was needed. It was decided to perform a combined transcarotid-TAVI (TC-TAVI) with EDWARDS S3 23 mm valve with a left endarteriectomy during the same operating time.

Discussion

Our case illustrates an alternative approach to perform a percutaneous aortic valve implantation, despite supra-aortic trunk stenosis, in a high-risk surgical patient contraindicated to a TF-TAVI. Transcarotid transaortic valve implantation remains a safe alternative when TF-TAVI is contraindicated, and the combined approach of carotid endarteriectomy and TC-TAVI offers a minimally invasive one-step treatment in high operative risk patients.

Transfemoral Versus Subclavian Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to compare outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) performed through subclavian access with those performed through transfemoral access.

METHODS

This was an observational study utilizing an institutional TAVR database from 2010 to 2018. All patients undergoing a TAVR via a transfemoral (TF-TAVR) or subclavian (SC-TAVR) approach were included in the study. The groups were analyzed for differences in operative mortality and postoperative outcomes. Multivariable Cox analysis was performed to identify variables associated with long-term survival after TAVR.

RESULTS

Of the 1,095 patients identified, 133 patients underwent SC-TAVR and 962 patients underwent TF-TAVR. Patients who underwent SC-TAVR were younger, more likely to have chronic lung disease and peripheral vascular disease, had higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality scores, and were more likely to have self-expanding valves placed (P < 0.05). Operative mortality was similar between the TF-TAVR (2.7%) and SC-TAVR (3.8%) groups. There were no significant differences in stroke, length of stay, 30-day readmission, blood transfusions, acute kidney injury, need for permanent pacemaker, paravalvular leak, or major vascular complications between the groups (P > 0.05). The unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival estimate for TF-TAVR was significantly higher than for SC-TAVR (P = 0.009, log-rank). However, on multivariable Cox analysis, subclavian access was not significantly associated with an increased hazard of death as compared with transfemoral access (P = 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of SC-TAVR are comparable to those of TF-TAVR. Subclavian access may be a favorable alternative approach when TF-TAVR is contraindicated.

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.

Transcarotid Access Versus Transfemoral Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The transfemoral (TF) route is the gold-standard access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). In 10–15% of patients, alternative accesses are needed, such as the transcarotid (TC) access. We performed a meta-analysis to compare 30-day mortality and complications between TC-TAVR and TF-TAVR.

Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to January 2021 to identify articles comparing TC-TAVR and TF-TAVR. Patients' baseline characteristics, procedural outcomes, and clinical 30-day outcomes were extracted.

Results: We identified 9 studies, among which 2 used propensity-score matching, including 1,374 TC patients and 3,706 TF patients. TC-TAVR was associated with significantly higher EuroSCORE II and Logistic EuroSCORE values (respectively 8.0 ± 6.7 vs. 6.3 ± 5.4, p = 0.002 and 20.8 ± 14.2% vs. 20.0 ± 13.4%, p = 0.04), a higher prevalence of peripheral artery disease (52.6 vs. 32.8%, p = 0.001), previous cardiac surgery (26.3 vs. 22.4%, p = 0.008) and coronary artery disease (64.6 vs. 60.5%, p = 0.020). The pooled results found TC-TAVR to be associated with a significantly higher 30-day mortality risk (RR, 1.41, 95% CI, 1.02–1.96, p = 0.040), and a lower rate of 30-day major vascular complications (RR, 0.48, 95% CI, 0.25–0.92, p = 0.030). No significant difference was found regarding permanent pacemaker implantation, major bleeding and acute kidney injury. A subgroup analysis of the two propensity-score matched studies found a statistically increased risk of 30-day neurovascular complications (RR, 1.61, 95% CI, 1.02–2.55, p = 0.040).

Conclusion: Compared with TF-TAVR, TC-TAVR was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality, likely related to a higher surgical risk and comorbidity burden, and with an increased risk of 30-day neurovascular complications. Careful preprocedural patient selection and close periprocedural neurological monitoring are paramount.

The transcervical access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Alternative accesses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are needed in a certain number of patients, who present contraindications to the standard transfemoral access. We present the transcervical approach, which allows to access the aortic valve via supra-aortic vessels, namely, the brachiocephalic trunk, carotid artery, or subclavian artery. This approach is interesting because it avoids thoracotomy, which is necessary with some other alternative approaches for TAVR, such as the transaortic or transapical ones. Although some points still need clarification, such as the best anesthesia modality (general or local) or the optimal side for vessel access, data suggest the transcervical access might yield similar periprocedural and 30-day outcomes compared with the transfemoral access. Herein, we describe the surgical technique that was developed in our institution for transcervical access.