Femoral Versus Nonfemoral Peripheral Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Hypercapnia during transcatheter aortic valve replacement under monitored anaesthesia care: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Acute intraoperative hypercapnia and respiratory acidosis, which can occur during monitored anaesthesia care (MAC), pose significant cardiopulmonary risks for patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The goal of the present study is to assess the incidence, risk factors and impact of intraoperative hypercapnia during MAC for patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR.

METHODS

Data was collected retrospectively from the electronic medical record of 201 consecutive patients with available intraoperative arterial blood gas (ABG) data who underwent percutaneous transfemoral TAVR with MAC using propofol and dexmedetomidine. ABGs (pH, arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) and arterial partial pressure of oxygen) were performed at the start of each case (baseline), immediately prior to valve deployment (ValveDepl), and on arrival to the postanaesthesia care unit. Data was analysed using Fisher's exact test, unpaired Student's t-test, Wilcoxon rank sum or univariate linear regression as appropriate based on PaCO2 and pH during ValveDepl (PaCO2-ValveDepl, pH-ValveDepl) and change in PaCO2 and pH from baseline to ValveDepl (PaCO2-%increase, pH-%decrease) to determine their association with preoperative demographic data, intraoperative anaesthetic and vasoactive medications and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

PaCO2 increased by a mean of 28.4% and was higher than baseline in 91% of patients. Younger age, male sex, increased weight and increased propofol dose contributed to higher PaCO2-ValveDepl and greater PaCO2-%increase. Patients with PaCO2-ValveDepl>60 mm Hg, pH≤7.2 and greater pH-%decrease were more likely to receive vasoactive medications, but perioperative PaCO2 and pH were not associated with adverse postoperative outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Transient significant hypercapnia commonly occurs during transfemoral TAVR with deep sedation using propofol and dexmedetomidine. Although the incidence of postoperative outcomes does not appear to be affected by hypercapnia, the need for vasopressors and inotropes is increased. If deep sedation is required for TAVR, hypercapnia and the need for haemodynamic and ventilatory support should be anticipated.

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

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

SURgical vs. PERcutaneous ACCESS in Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (SU-PER-ACCESS Study)

Background: The transfemoral (TF) approach is the most common route in TAVI, but it is still associated with a risk of bleeding and vascular complications. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between surgical cut-down (SC) and percutaneous (PC) approach. (2) Methods: Between January 2018 and June 2022, 774 patients underwent a transfemoral TAVI procedure. After propensity matching, 323 patients underwent TAVI in each group. (3) Results: In the matched population, 15 patients (4.6%) in the SC group vs. 34 patients in the PC group (11%) experienced minor vascular complications (p = 0.02), while no difference for major vascular complication (1.5% vs. 1.9%) were reported. The rate of minor bleeding events was higher in the percutaneous group (11% vs. 3.1%, p <.001). The SC group experienced a higher rate of non-vascular-related access complications (minor 8% vs. 1.2%; major 2.2% vs. 1.2%; p < 0.001). (4) Conclusions: SC for TF-TAVI did not alter the mortality rate at 30 days and was associated with reduced minor vascular complication and bleeding. PC showed a lower rate of non-vascular-related access complications and a lower length of stay. The specific approach should be tailored to the patient's clinical characteristics.

Five-year outcomes of transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

STRUCTURE

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

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

STRUCTURE

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

Alternative Access for TAVR: Choosing the Right Pathway

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an alternative treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis regardless of surgical risk, particularly in those with a high and prohibitive risk. Since the advent of TAVR, transfemoral access has been the standard of care. However, given comorbidities and anatomical limitations, a proportion of patients are not good candidates for a transfemoral approach. Alternative access, including transapical, transaortic, transaxillary, transsubclavian, transcarotid, and transcaval, can be considered. Each alternative access has advantages and disadvantages, so the vascular route should be tailored to the patient's characteristics. However, there is no standardized algorithm when choosing the optimal alternative vascular access. In this review, we analyzed the evolution and current evidence for the most common alternative access for TAVR and proposed an algorithm for choosing the optimal vascular access in this patient population.

Survival outcomes of TAVR and self-expanding versus balloon-expandable valves in patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction

AIMS

There is a growing body of literature on long-term outcomes post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), but to our knowledge, few research have focused on patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction. This challenging category of patients was excluded from the Partner 3 clinical trial. There are no data to guide the choice of valve type in patients with severely depressed ejection fraction. This study evaluates the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of TAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35%. It compares post-TAVR survival outcomes with self-expanding (SEV) versus balloon-expandable (BEV) valves in the context of cardiac dysfunction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A retrospective cohort was conducted on 977 patients who underwent TAVR at Toulouse University Hospital between January 2016 and December 2020. The study population included two groups: LVEF ≤ 35% (N = 157) and LVEF ≥ 50% (N = 820). The group of LVEF ≤ 35% was divided into two subgroups according to the type of implanted device: self-expanding (N = 66) versus balloon-expandable (N = 91). The living status of each of study's participants was observed in December 2022. Patients with low ejection fraction were younger (82 vs. 84.6 years) and commonly males (71.3% vs. 45.6%). Procedural success was almost 98% in both study groups (97.5% vs. 97.9%). The prevalence of all in-hospital post-TAVR complications [acute kidney injury (3.8% vs. 2.2%), major bleeding events (2.5% vs. 3.2%), stroke (1.3% vs. 1.6%), pacemaker implantation (10.2% vs. 10.7%), major vascular complication (4.5% vs. 4.5%), new onset atrial fibrillation (3.2% vs. 3.4%), and in-hospital death (3.2% vs. 2.8%)] were similar between groups (LVEF ≤ 35% vs. LVEF ≥ 50%). No difference in long-term survival has been revealed over 3.4 years (P = 0.268). In patients with LVEF ≤ 35%, except for post-TAVR mean aortic gradient (7.8 ± 4.2 vs. 10.2 ± 3.6), baseline and procedural characteristics were comparable between SEV versus BEV subgroups. An early improvement in LVEF (from 29.2 ± 5.5 to 37.4 ± 10.8) was observed. In patients with LVEF ≤ 35%, the all-cause mortality rate was significantly higher in BEV than that in SEV subgroups, respectively (40.7% vs. 22.7%, P = 0.018). Kaplan-Meier curve showed better survival outcomes after SEV implantation (P = 0.032). A Cox regression identified BEV as independent predictor of mortality [HR = 3.276, 95% CI (1.520-7.060), P = 0.002].

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of low LVEF, TAVR remains a safe and effective procedure not associated with an increased risk of complications and mortality. SEV implantation may likely result in superior survival outcomes in patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction.

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.

Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a VARC-HBR consensus document

The identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are of major importance, but the lack of standardised definitions is challenging for trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Valve Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (VARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organisations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from Europe, the USA, and Asia, with a major focus on TAVI-related bleeding. VARC-HBR is an initiative of the CERC (Cardiovascular European Research Center), aiming to develop a consensus definition of TAVI patients at HBR, based on a systematic review of the available evidence, to provide consistency for future clinical trials, clinical decision-making, and regulatory review. This document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of HBR evaluating the safety and effectiveness of procedures, devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing TAVI..

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A Novel Use of a Not So "EZ-Blocker" For Lung Isolation During a Direct Transaortic Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Alternate access transcatheter aortic valve replacement presents unique challenges for anesthesiologists, including the possible need for lung isolation while working with space constraints around the patient's airway. Troubleshooting lung isolation in these cases can be challenging, requiring quick thinking and adaptability while maintaining patient safety. We present a case of direct transaortic transcatheter aortic valve replacement with an endobronchial blocker ("EZ-blocker") used for lung isolation that required a novel use of the "EZ-blocker" to achieve adequate lung isolation.

Non-femoral focused transaxillary access in TAVI: GARY data analysis and future trends

BACKGROUND

In patients not suitable for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), several access strategies can be chosen.

AIM

To evaluate the use and patient outcomes of transaxillary (TAx), transapical (TA), and transaortic (TAo) as alternative access for TAVI in Germany; to further evaluate surgical cutdown vs. percutaneous TAx access.

METHODS

All patients entered the German Aortic Valve Registry (GARY) between 2011 and 2019 who underwent non-transfemoral TAVI were included in this analysis. Patients with TA, TAo, or TAx TAVI were compared using a weighted propensity score model. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis was performed for TAx regarding the percutaneous or surgical cutdown approach.

RESULTS

Overall, 9686 patients received a non-transfemoral access. A total of 8918 patients (92.1%) underwent TA, 398 (4.1%) TAo, and 370 (3.8%) TAx approaches. Within the TAx subgroup, 141 patients (38.1%) received subclavian cutdown, while 200 (54.1%) underwent a percutaneous approach. The TA patients had a significantly lower 30-day survival than TAx patients (TA 90.92% vs. TAx 95.59%, p = 0.006; TAo 92.22% vs. TAx 95.59%, p = 0.102). Comparing percutaneous and cutdown TAx approaches, no significant differences were seen. However, more vascular complications occurred (TA 1.8%, TAo 2.4%, TAx 12.2%; p < .001), and the hospital length of stay was shorter (TA 12.9 days, TAo 14.1 days, TAx 12 days; p < .001) after TAx access.

CONCLUSION

It may be reasonable to consider TAx access first in patients not suitable for TF-TAVI, because the 30-day survival was higher compared with TA access and the 1-year survival was higher compared with TAo access. It remains important for the heart teams to offer alternative access modalities for patients not amenable to the standard TF-TAVI approaches.

Single-access, non-contrast transcatheter aortic valve implantation, the ultimate minimalist approach: a case report

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established treatment for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Patients with previous renal transplant are considered as a high-risk cohort who may develop procedural complications related to vascular access and renal impairment post-TAVI.

Case summary

Herein, we report a case of an 88-year-old male who presented with progressive dyspnoea. His transthoracic echocardiogram revealed severe aortic stenosis with a peak gradient of 75 mmHg and impaired left ventricle systolic function (an estimated ejection fraction of 40%). He had a background of kidney transplant with progressive decline in renal function, requiring the formation of left arm arteriovenous fistula in preparation for future dialysis. He was successfully treated with TAVI using a single vascular access site without administering contrast media.

Discussion

Single-access, non-contrast TAVI is feasible when treating renal transplant patients with severe aortic stenosis and limited vascular access. The current minimalistic approach should be used only in highly selective patient cases.

Transfemoral versus trans-subclavian access in transcatheter aortic valve implantation using self-expandable valve: A propensity-matched comparison

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is unfeasible for 10-15% of patients using the conventional transfemoral approach. Other alternative approaches, such as the subclavian approach, have emerged, with no clear recommendation indicating the superiority of one technique over another.

AIM

To compare the 1-month mortality and postprocedural outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation using a self-expandable valve via transfemoral and subclavian access.

METHODS

This was a retrospective single-centre study including 1496 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation between January 2016 and December 2020 at Clermont-Ferrand University Hospital, France. Propensity score matching was used to compare transfemoral and subclavian access.

RESULTS

After building two propensity score-matched groups of 221 patients each with either access route (total n=442), baseline characteristics were similar. The procedure duration was significantly longer in the subclavian access group (53 [45-64] versus 60 [51-72] minutes; P<0.001), but with a lower amount of contrast agent (138 [118-165] versus 123 [105-150] mL; P<0.001), fluoroscopy time (11.2 [9-14] versus 9.9 [7-12] minutes; P<0.001) and radiation dose (397 [264-620] versus 321 [217-485] mGy; P<0.001). No significant difference was observed concerning 1-month mortality (odds ratio 1.62, 95% confidence interval 0.52-5.03; P=0.39) or periprocedural complications. Follow-up at 1 year confirmed no difference in longer-term mortality (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.52-5.03; P=0.43).

CONCLUSIONS

The subclavian approach provides similar results to the transfemoral approach in terms of mortality, efficacy and safety; it is a reasonable and effective alternative when the reference transfemoral approach is impossible or seems complex.

Single femoral artery access is safe and feasible during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a propensity score matched analysis

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) potentially may be significantly simplified by using the single artery access (SA) technique, which does not require a secondary artery access. Nevertheless, the safety and efficacy of this technique remains unclear. Our goal was to determine if single artery access TAVR (without upgrading the sheath size) is a feasible, minimally invasive procedure.

Methods

Patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR via the femoral artery were consecutively enrolled in this study. Eligible individuals were divided into 2 groups: the SA group and the dual artery access (DA) group. The primary end point was device success (defined by the valve academic research consortium 3, VARC 3). A 6-month follow-up and propensity score matching analyses were performed.

Results

After propensity score matching analysis, a total of 130 patients were included: 65 in the SA group and 65 in the DA group. The SA procedure achieved similar device success (95.4% vs. 87.7%; P = 0.115) compared with the DA procedure. The SA procedure shortened the operating time (102 min vs. 125 min; P = 0.001) but did not increase the x-ray time or dose. Both a 20 Fr and a 22 Fr sheath (without upgrading the sheath size) could be used for the SA procedure. There was no major vascular complication occurred in both groups. The incidence of minor main vascular and access complications in the SA group was comparable to those of the DA procedure (0.0% vs. 3.1%; P = 0.156).

Conclusions

The SA access procedure is a promising minimally invasive TAVR technique with a low incidence of vascular complications and a high incidence of device success. It is safe and possibly applicable in all TAVR procedures.

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.

Cardiac Death After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Contemporary Devices

BACKGROUND

The burden of cardiac death after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), particularly from advanced heart failure (HF) and sudden cardiac death (SCD), remains largely unknown.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate the incidence and predictors of SCD and HF-related death in TAVR recipients treated with newer-generation devices.

METHODS

This study included a total of 5,421 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR with newer-generation devices using balloon (75.7%) or self-expandable (24.3%) valves.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 2 (IQR: 1-3) years, 976 (18.0%) patients had died, 50.8% from cardiovascular causes. Advanced HF and SCD accounted for 11.6% and 7.5% of deaths, respectively. Independent predictors of HF-related death were atrial fibrillation (HR: 2.17; 95% CI: 1.47-3.22; P < 0.001), prior pacemaker (HR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.10-2.92; P = 0.01), reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HR: 1.08 per 5% decrease; 95% CI: 1.01-1.14; P = 0.02), transthoracic approach (HR: 2.50; 95% CI: 1.37-4.55; P = 0.003), and new-onset persistent left bundle branch block (HR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.14-3.02; P = 0.01). Two baseline characteristics (diabetes, HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.13-2.89; P = 0.01; and chronic kidney disease, HR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.02-2.90; P = 0.04) and 3 procedural findings (valve in valve, HR: 2.17; 95% CI: 1.01-4.64; P = 0.04; transarterial nontransfemoral approach, HR: 2.23; 95% CI: 1.23-4.48; P = 0.01; and periprocedural ventricular arrhythmia, HR: 7.19; 95% CI: 2.61-19.76; P < 0.001) were associated with an increased risk of SCD after TAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced HF and SCD accounted for a fifth of deaths after TAVR in contemporary practice. Potentially treatable factors leading to increased risk of HF deaths and SCD were identified, such as arrhythmia/dyssynchrony factors for HF and valve-in-valve TAVR or periprocedural ventricular arrhythmias for SCD.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Iliofemoral artery predilation prior to transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with aortic valve stenosis and advanced peripheral artery disease

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the feasibility and safety of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) of the iliofemoral arteries (IFA) before transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (Tf-TAVI) in patients with advanced peripheral artery disease (PAD).

BACKGROUND

Although Tf-TAVI represents the access of choice, alternative vascular access routes are preferred for patients displaying advanced PAD. PTA of the IFA represents a less invasive option, broadening the spectrum of patients eligible for Tf-TAVI.

METHODS

All patients requiring PTA of the IFA before Tf-TAVI, between 2012 and 2021, were included. Primary efficacy endpoint was the rate of successful transcatheter heart valve (THV) delivery and implantation. Primary safety endpoint was the rate of PTA and access-site-related vascular complications, procedural- and in-hospital complications.

RESULTS

Among 2726 Tf-TAVI procedures, 59 patients required IFA predilation. Successful THV delivery and implantation was achieved in 57 (96.6%) patients, respectively. Sheath placement was achieved in 59 (100%) patients with only one minor dissection and no major vascular complications following iliofemoral PTA. Regarding access site complications, two (3.4%) vessel perforations and one (1.7%) vessel rupture were observed, with eight (13.5%) patients requiring unplanned endovascular interventions. There was one intraprocedural death due to THV-induced vessel laceration, while in-hospital all-cause mortality was 8.5% in the present high-risk patient cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Predilation of IFA is safe and effective in patients with advanced PAD. Careful preprocedural planning is paramount in improving procedural safety and efficacy. This strategy has the potential to broaden the spectrum of patients eligible for Tf-TAVI.

Vascular management during transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), as an alternative to open heart surgery, has been established as the standard therapy for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. Vascular access management, the first step in a TAVR procedure, should be managed properly. Moreover, the transfemoral and alternatives such as the transaxillary/subclavian, transcarotid, transapical, and transcaval approaches are considered access routes during TAVR. More than 90% of cases can be treated via the transfemoral approach in the current TAVR era, whereas other approaches should be considered in patients in whom the transfemoral approach is not suitable. Vascular complications regardless of access route differences are a specific issue of TAVR caused by the use of large sheaths. With the increased number of TAVR cases, we must manage vascular complications and decrease the morbidity and mortality rates associated with TAVR procedures. Thus, this study aimed to review the vascular complications during TAVR and summarize their prognosis, prevention, and adequate management.

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.

[TAVR : Imaging for an optimal femoral approach]

Both computed tomography (CT) angiography and vascular ultrasound have a major role before and during a transfemoral approach to TAVR. CT angiography will determine whether the patient is eligible for a femoral approach. Peri-procedural arterial ultrasound will be helpful to improve safety and optimize results during the femoral approach. Being able to interpret both of these imaging modalities is of paramount importance for any interventional cardiologist who practices structural interventions.

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.

Concordance of Guideline-Based Risk Stratification and Selection of Patients for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation or Surgical Replacement

The 2020 American Health Association/American College of Cardiology valve guidelines recommend surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for symptomatic patients with aortic stenosis (AS) age <65 years and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for patients with AS age >80 years. We analyzed TAVI versus SAVR practice patterns using age-based recommendations. We compared 2016-to-2019 TAVI and isolated SAVR in northern New England at 5 centers according to guideline-recommended age groups. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of TAVI for the intermediate age group. The study was approved by each site's institutional review board in accordance with ongoing participation and quality improvement efforts in the Northern New England Cardiovascular Study Group. Among 4,161 patients with isolated severe AS, TAVI increased from 2016 to 2019: 55.8% versus 76.1%, p <0.01 for trend. SAVR for patients with AS age >80 years was uncommon and decreased over time: 13.1% versus 1.6%, p <0.01. TAVI utilization nearly doubled over time in young patients with AS age <65 years (14.3% vs 26.2%, p <0.01). Preference for SAVR decreased by 50% over time (p <0.01) in the intermediate age group (65 to 80 years). Independent predictors of TAVI among patients aged 65 to 80 years included older age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, previous stroke, and coronary artery bypass grafting, whereas vascular disease and clinical urgency favored SAVR. In conclusion, consistent with current American Health Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines, TAVI was the treatment of choice in >97% of severe patients with AS age >80 years by 2019. TAVI utilization in patients <65 years has doubled over time and thus may not reflect current guideline recommendations. TAVI is the preferred choice in those aged 65 to 80 years, especially among patients with previous stroke or coronary artery bypass grafting.

Evolving Indications of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement—Where Are We Now, and Where Are We Going

Indications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have steadily increased over the last decade since the first trials including inoperable or very high risk patients. Thus, TAVR is now the most common treatment of aortic valve stenosis in elderly patients (vs. surgical aortic valve replacement -SAVR-). In this review, we summarize the current indications of TAVR and explore future directions in which TAVR indications can expand.

Management of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and Complex Aorta Anatomy: The Importance of Pre-Procedural Planning

Aortic stenosis is the most common primary valve lesion requiring surgery or, especially for older patients, transcatheter intervention (TAVI). We showcase a successful transfemoral TAVI procedure in a very high-risk patient and an extremely tortuous S-shaped descending aorta, characterized by heavy calcifications and multiple strong resistance points. We demonstrated that transfemoral TAVI using the “buddy stiff guidewire” technique could be a feasible, simple, quick, and easy procedure able to straighten an extremely abdominal aorta tortuosity. With all techniques available and careful pre-procedural planning, and thanks to the flexibility of new generation TAVI delivery systems, it is possible to safely perform the procedure even in the most challenging 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.

Iliofemoral tortuosity increases the risk of access site-related complications after aortic valve implantation and plug-based access site closure

Background

Access-site-related complications are often related to high-risk anatomy and technical pitfalls and impair the outcomes of transfemoral aortic valve implantations (TAVIs). Calcification and tortuosity are widely recognized risk factors, and their impact on procedural planning is left to the implanting experts’ discretion. To facilitate decision-making, we introduced a quantitative measure for iliofemoral tortuosity and assessed its predictive value for access-site-related vascular and bleeding complications.

Methods

We performed a single-centre prospective cohort study of consecutive, percutaneous transfemoral TAVI performed between April 2019 and March 2020. Medical history and all-cause mortality were extracted from the electronic patient files. Arterial anatomy and calcifications were evaluated using 3mensio Structural Heart software. The primary outcome was access-site-related vascular or bleeding complications.

Results

In this elderly, intermediate-risk population, we registered the primary outcome in 43 patients (39%), and major access-site complications in 10 patients (9.2%). Complete hemostasis was achieved in 77 patients (70.6%), by the application of the MANTA plug alone. In the group with access-site-related adverse events, compared with the group without, the tortuosity index was higher median (26% interquartile range [IQR 18%-33%] vs median 19% [IQR 13%-29%], respectively; P = 0.012), as was maximal angulation median (50° [IQR 40°-59°] vs median 43° [IQR 36°-51°], respectively; P = 0.026) were higher. Both variables had a significant effect on our primary outcome, with odds ratios (OR) of 3.1 (tortuosity, P = 0.005) and 2.6 (angulation, P = 0.020). The degree of angulation was a predictor of major complications too (odds ratio 7 [1.4-34.8]; P = 0.017).

Conclusions

Steeper angles and greater arterial elongation increase the risk of vascular and bleeding complications after femoral TAVI with the utilization of a plug-based closure device.

Vascular Access Site Complications Do Not Correlate With Large Sheath Diameter in TAVI Procedures With New Generation Devices

Background: Vascular complications after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are associated with morbidity and mortality. However, consistent predictors have not been identified yet. The size of the implantation sheath seems to play a role, though especially with new generation TAVI devices and their improved sheaths and delivery systems this remains uncertain.

Objectives: This study aimed to determine the incidence and predictors of access site-related vascular complications (VC) in the era of new generation TAVI devices.

Methods and Results: Four hundred consecutive patients receiving TAVI in an experienced tertiary care center were analyzed. VC occurred in 89 patients (22.25%) with the majority being minor VC (21%) and only 1.25% major VC. Possible predictors for VC were tested, and only peri-interventional dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) showed to be predictive for VC [OR 2.11 (95% CI 1.10–4.06, p = 0.025)]. The female gender [OR 0.75 (95% CI 0.44–1.3), p = 0.31], sheath to femoral artery ratio >1.05 [OR 1.18 (95% CI 0.66–2.08, p = 0.58)], calcification of the access site vessel [OR 0.83 (95% CI 0.48–1.42, p = 0.48)], known peripheral artery disease [OR 0.95 (95% CI 0.4–2.25, p = 0.9)], and BMI ≥ 25 kg/m² [OR 0.69 (95% CI 0.41–1.19, p = 0–19)] were not predictive of VC. The larger sheath with 20 French even showed less VC than the smaller sheath with 16 French [OR 0.43 (95% CI 0.25–0.74, p = 0.002)].

Conclusions: Overall, the rate of major and minor VC was low in this study population (for major VC: rate of 1.25%). Predefined risk factors were not associated with the occurrence of VC, except for peri-interventional treatment with DAPT. Especially, larger sheath size could not be identified as a predictor for VC in the setting of TAVI procedures performed with contemporary devices.

Interventional Treatment of Access Site Complications During Transfemoral TAVI: A Single Center Experience

Introduction: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has rapidly developed over the last decade and is nowadays the treatment of choice in the elderly patients irrespective of surgical risk. The outcome of these patients is mainly determined not only by the interventional procedure itself, but also by its complications. Material and Methods: We analyzed the outcome and procedural events of transfemoral TAVI procedures performed per year at our institution. The mean age of these patients is 79.2 years and 49% are female. All the patients underwent duplex ultrasonography of the iliac arteries and inguinal vessels before the procedure and CT of the aorta and iliac arteries. Results: Transfemoral access route is associated with a number of challenges and complications, especially in the patients suffering from peripheral artery disease (PAD). The rate of vascular complications at our center was 2.76% (19/689). Typical vascular complications (VC) include bleeding and pseudoaneurysms at the puncture site, acute or subacute occlusion of the access vessel, and dissection or perforation of the iliac vessels. In addition, there is the need for primary PTA of the access pathway in the presence of additional PAD of the common femoral artery (CFA) and iliac vessels. Balloon angioplasty, implantation of covered and uncovered stents, lithoplasty, and ultrasound-guided thrombin injection are available to treat the described issues. Conclusion: Interventional therapy of access vessels can preoperatively enable the transfemoral approach and successfully treat post-operative VC in most of the cases. Training the heart team to address these issues is a key focus, and an interventional vascular specialist should be part of this team.

Network meta-analysis comparing the short and long-term outcomes of alternative access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Several studies have pair-wise compared access sites for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) but pooled estimate of overall comparative efficacy and safety outcomes are not well known. We sought to compare short- and long-term outcomes following various alternative access routes for TAVR.

METHODS

Thirty-four studies with a pooled sample size of 32,756 patients were selected by searching PubMed and Cochrane library databases from inception through 11th June 2021 for patients undergoing TAVR via 1 of 6 different access sites: Transfemoral (TF), Transaortic (TAO), Transapical (TA), Transcarotid (TC), Transaxillary/Subclavian (TSA), and Transcaval (TCV). Data were extracted to conduct a frequentist network meta-analysis with a random-effects model using TF access as a reference group.

RESULTS

Compared with TF, both TAO [RR 1.91, 95% CI (1.46-2.50)] and TA access [RR 2.12, 95% CI (1.84-2.46)] were associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality. No significant difference was observed for stroke, myocardial infarction, major bleeding, conversion to open surgery, and major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events at 30 days between different accesses. Major vascular complications were lower in TA [RR 0.43, (95% CI, 0.28-0.67)] and TC [RR 0.51, 95% CI (0.35-0.73)] access compared to TF. The 1-year mortality was higher in TAO [RR of 1.35, (95% CI, 1.01-1.81)] and TA [RR 1.44, (95% CI, 1.14-1.81)] groups.

CONCLUSION

Non-thoracic alternative access site utilization for TAVR implantation (TC, TSA and TCV) is associated with outcomes similar to conventional TF access. Thoracic TAVR access (TAO and TA) translates into increased short and long-term mortality.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Shockwave and Non-transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a widely adopted treatment modality for severe aortic stenosis. Transfemoral access is the approach of choice; however, approximately 25% of patients undergoing TAVR also have concomitant peripheral arterial disease. The recent advent of intravascular lithotripsy has enabled preservation of transfemoral access in some patients; although, a proportion still require alternative, non-femoral access. Alternative access sites can be broadly categorized into transthoracic and peripheral, facilitated by surgical or percutaneous techniques. In this review, the technical details and clinical outcomes of various TAVR accesses are discussed. Initially, transthoracic approaches were most common, but recently, the trend has been toward alternative peripheral access due to superior outcomes. Although there are no randomized data to support all the alternative access sites, the experiences reported provide available options for a large portion of patients to be candidates for TAVR. The intervention site should be selected by a multidisciplinary heart team based on patient anatomical factors and institutional expertise.

Combined Triple Transcatheter Aortic Procedure in a Patient With Aortic Stenosis, Coarctation, and Aneurysm

We present the case of a 71-year-old man admitted because of chest tightness, palpitations, and progressive shortness of breath. The diagnosis of severe aortic stenosis, coarctation, and aneurysm was established, as well as severely depressed left ventricular ejection fraction. Three consecutive transcatheter procedures were successfully performed in a single session. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

Vascular Complications in TAVR: Incidence, Clinical Impact, and Management

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has replaced surgical aortic valve replacement as the new gold standard in elderly patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. However, alongside this novel approach, new complications emerged that require swift diagnosis and adequate management. Vascular access marks the first step in a TAVR procedure. There are several possible access sites available for TAVR, including the transfemoral approach as well as transaxillary/subclavian, transcarotid, transapical, and transcaval. Most cases are primarily performed through a transfemoral approach, while other access routes are mainly conducted in patients not suitable for transfemoral TAVR. As vascular access is achieved primarily by large bore sheaths, vascular complications are one of the major concerns during TAVR. With rising numbers of TAVR being performed, the focus on prevention and successful management of vascular complications will be of paramount importance to lower morbidity and mortality of the procedures. Herein, we aimed to review the most common vascular complications associated with TAVR and summarize their diagnosis, management, and prevention of vascular complications in TAVR.

Early clinical outcomes after transaxillary versus transfemoral TAVI. Data from the Spanish TAVI registry

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Transaxillary access (TXA) has become the most widely used alternative to transfemoral access (TFA) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this study was to compare total in-hospital and 30-day mortality in patients included in the Spanish TAVI registry who were treated by TXA or TFA access.

METHODS

We analyzed data from patients treated with TXA or TFA and who were included in the TAVI Spanish registry. In-hospital and 30-day events were defined according to the recommendations of the Valve Academic Research Consortium. The impact of the access route was evaluated by propensity score matching according to clinical and echocardiogram characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 6603 patients were included; 191 (2.9%) were treated via TXA and 6412 via TFA access. After adjustment (n=113 TXA group and n=3035 TFA group) device success was similar between the 2 groups (94%, TXA vs 95%, TFA; P=.95). However, compared with the TFA group, the TXA group showed a higher rate of acute myocardial infarction (OR, 5.3; 95%CI, 2.0-13.8); P=.001), renal complications (OR, 2.3; 95%CI, 1.3-4.1; P=.003), and pacemaker implantation (OR, 1.6; 95%CI, 1.01-2.6; P=.03). The TXA group also had higher in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates (OR, 2.2; 95%CI, 1.04-4.6; P=.039 and OR, 2.3; 95%CI, 1.2-4.5; P=.01, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with ATF, TXA is associated with higher total mortality, both in-hospital and at 30 days. Given these results, we believe that TXA should be considered only in those patients who are not suitable candidates for TFA.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: All Transfemoral? Update on Peripheral Vascular Access and Closure

Transfemoral access remains the most widely used peripheral vascular approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Despite technical improvement and reduction in delivery sheath diameters of all TAVI platforms, 10-20% of patients remain not eligible to transfemoral TAVI due to peripheral artery disease. In this review, we aim at presenting an update of recent data concerning transfemoral access and percutaneous closure devices. Moreover, we will review peripheral non-transfemoral alternative as well as caval-aortic accesses and discuss the important features to assess with pre-procedural imaging modalities before TAVI.

The selection of transcatheter heart valves in transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter heart valve technology has rapidly progressed since initial approval in the United States. There are currently two widely available transcatheter heart valve delivery systems approved in the US; however limited data exist on optimal device selection for various patient populations. This review explores the characteristics of currently approved transcatheter heart valve systems and scenarios where one valve system may be favored over others. We provide a simplified decision tree for selecting the optimal transcatheter valve system for specific patient-centered characteristics.

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.