Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Using Transaortic Access: Experience From the Multicenter, Multinational, Prospective ROUTE Registry

First transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation with Acurate Neo: case report and technical recommendations

Background

In more than 90%, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is performed via transfemoral access. Alternative access routes are necessary for patients with unfavourable femoral arteries.

Case summary

We report of a 68-year-old female with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis in whom surgical aortic valve replacement was prohibited due to her severe co-morbidities. Both femoral arteries and both subclavian arteries were unsuitable for TAVI access. Surgical aortic valve replacement and transapical TAVI were deferred due to extremely high operative risk and very low originating left coronary artery of 7 mm from the annulus. Hence, we decided to implant a self-expanding TAVI device with a low risk of coronary obstruction (Acurate Neo 2 prosthesis) via transaortic approach, which to our knowledge is the first case worldwide.

Conclusion

The present case demonstrates the feasibility of implanting the Acurate Neo 2 system via transaortic approach when certain key points are respected. Transaortic TAVI with the Acurate Neo 2 offers a minimally invasive treatment of high operative risk patients with low originating coronary arteries.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Access Sites: Same Goals, Distinct Aspects, Various Merits and Demerits

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been established as a safe and efficacious treatment for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). Despite being initially developed and indicated for high-surgical-risk patients, it is now offered to low-risk populations based on the results of large randomized controlled trials. The most common access sites in the vast majority of patients undergoing TAVI are the common femoral arteries; however, 10-20% of the patients treated with TAVI require an alternative access route, mainly due to peripheral atherosclerotic disease or complex anatomy. Hence, to achieve successful delivery and implantation of the valve, several arterial approaches have been studied, including transcarotid (TCr), axillary/subclavian (A/Sc), transapical (TAp), transaortic (TAo), suprasternal-brachiocephalic (S-B), and transcaval (TCv). This review aims to concisely summarize the most recent literature data and current guidelines as well as evaluate the various access routes for TAVI, focusing on the indications, the various special patient groups, and the advantages and disadvantages of each technique, as well as their adverse events.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation by Intercostal Access: Initial Experience with a No-Touch Technique

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is now a well-established therapeutic option in an elderly high-risk patient cohort with aortic valve disease. Although most commonly performed via a transfemoral route, alternative approaches for TAVI are constantly being improved. Instead of the classical mini-sternotomy, it is possible to achieve a transaortic access via a right anterior mini-thoracotomy in the second intercostal space. We describe our experience with this sternum- and rib-sparing technique in comparison to the classical transaortic approach.

METHODS

Our retrospective study includes 173 patients who were treated in our institution between January 2017 and April 2020 with transaortic TAVI via either upper mini-sternotomy or intercostal thoracotomy. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality, and secondary endpoints were defined as major postoperative complications that included admission to the intensive care unit and overall hospital stay, according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients were treated with TAo-TAVI by upper mini-sternotomy, while 91 patients received the intercostal approach. Both groups were comparable in age (mean age: 82 years) and in the proportion of female patients. The intercostal group had a higher rate of peripheral artery disease (41% vs. 22%, p = 0.008) and coronary artery disease (71% vs. 40%, p < 0.001) with a history of percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting, resulting in significantly higher preinterventional risk evaluation (EuroScore II 8% in the intercostal vs. 4% in the TAo group, p = 0.005). Successful device implantation and a reduction of the transvalvular gradient were achieved in all cases with a significantly lower rate of trace to mild paravalvular leakage in the intercostal group (12% vs. 33%, p < 0.001). The intercostal group required significantly fewer blood transfusions (0 vs. 2 units, p = 0.001) and tended to require less reoperation (7% vs. 15%, p = 0.084). Hospital stays (9 vs. 12 d, p = 0.011) were also shorter in the intercostal group. Short- and long-term survival in the follow-up showed comparable results between the two approaches (30-day, 6-month- and 2-year mortality: 7%, 23% and 36% in the intercostal vs. 9%, 26% and 33% in the TAo group) with acute kidney injury (AKI) and reintubation being independent risk factors for mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Transaortic TAVI via an intercostal access offers a safe and effective treatment of aortic valve stenosis.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients: Opportunities and Challenges

Over the past two decades, the rapid evolution of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the management of severe aortic stenosis (AS) in the elderly. The prevalence of comorbidities in elderly AS patients presents a considerable challenge to the effectiveness and prognosis of patients after TAVR. In this article, we aim to summarize some of the clinical aspects of the current use of TAVR in elderly patients and attempt to highlight the challenges and issues that need further consideration.

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

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

Alternative Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Comprehensive Review

Transfemoral is the most widely used access to perform transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, alternative access is needed in up to 21% of patients with TAVR because of a myriad of factors. The authors provide a comprehensive review on alternative access for TAVR, discussing the relevant data and providing the pros and cons of each access route.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation via surgical subclavian versus direct aortic access: A United Kingdom analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical subclavian (SC) and direct aortic (DA) access are established alternatives to the default transfemoral route for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We sought to find differences in survival and procedure-related outcomes after SC- versus DA-TAVI.

METHODS

We performed an observational cohort analysis of cases prospectively uploaded to the UK TAVI registry. To ensure the most contemporaneous comparison, the analysis focused on SC and DA procedures performed from 2013 to 2015.

RESULTS

Between January 2013 and July 2015, 82 (37%) SC and 142 (63%) DA cases were performed that had validated 1-year life status. Multivariable regression analysis showed procedure duration was longer for SC cases (SC 193.5 ± 65.8 vs. DA 138.4 ± 57.7 min; p < .01) but length of hospital stay was shorter (SC 8.6 ± 9.5 vs. DA 11.9 ± 10.8 days; p = .03). Acute kidney injury was observed less frequently after SC cases (odds ratio [OR] 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI 0.12-0.96]; p = .042) but vascular access site-related complications were more common (OR 9.75 [3.07-30.93]; p < .01). Procedure-related bleeding (OR 0.54 [0.24-1.25]; p = .15) and in-hospital stroke rate (SC 3.7% vs. DA 2.1%; p = .67) were similar. There were no significant differences in in-hospital (SC 2.4% vs. DA 4.9%; p = .49), 30-day (SC 2.4% vs. DA 4.2%; p = .71) or 1-year (SC 14.5% vs. DA 21.9%; p = .344) mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical subclavian and direct aortic approaches can offer favourable outcomes in appropriate patients. Neither access modality conferred a survival advantage but there were significant differences in procedural metrics that might influence which approach is selected.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: clinical safety and performance data

Introduction: Patients with severe aortic stenosis and regurgitation who are inoperable or at high-risk for surgery can be treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature of TAVR and reported clinical and performance outcomes. Areas covered: A total of 16 devices, described in 204 articles describing clinical and performance outcomes, were included. The most frequently observed outcome was 30-day mortality, ranging between 0-23%. Other commonly reported clinical outcomes were 30-day stroke, ranging between 0-14.3% and pacemaker implantation, ranging from 0-44.9%. The most common valve performance outcome was aortic valve regurgitation, however, mostly reported at 7 days follow-up. Next to a follow-up period of 30 days, numerous articles reported outcomes at 6 months and 1 year. The numbers of articles describing outcomes with a longer follow-up as well as including intermediate and low-risk patients were limited. Expert commentary: This literature review provided a clear overview of the reported clinical and performance outcomes of TAVR devices. Despite the frequently used VARC-2 definitions, we identified a huge variation across studies. Future studies using standardized definitions of study set-ups and outcomes are essential and might lead to better insights of TAVR.

Propensity-matched comparison of clinical outcomes after transaortic versus transfemoral aortic valve replacement

AIMS

We aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of transaortic (TAo-AVR) and transfemoral (TF-AVR) transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between January 2012 and December 2015, consecutive TAo-AVR and TF-AVR cases were compared using a propensity score-matching analysis. Primary endpoints were 30-day and one-year mortality; 644 TAVR patients were included (163 TAo-AVR and 481 TF-AVR). Peripheral artery disease (31.9% vs. 5%, p<0.001) and coronary artery disease (50.0% vs. 39.3%, p=0.009) were more frequent in TAo-AVR patients. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores were not different (6.9% vs. 6.5%, p=0.243). Propensity matching identified 124 well-matched patient pairs. Thirty-day and one-year mortality rates were similar in the overall population of TAo-AVR and TF-AVR patients (7.3% vs 7.6%, p=0.8 and 18.4% vs. 15.8%, p=0.6, respectively), and in the matched cohort (7.3% vs. 6.5%, p=0.8 and 15.3% vs. 16.1%, p=0.8, respectively). Transaortic access was associated with higher risk of new onset of atrial fibrillation (NOAF) (24.4% vs. 9.6%, p=0.012), life-threatening bleedings (6.5% vs. 0.8%, p=0.036) and transfusion (41% vs. 16.7%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences were observed between the respective 30-day and one-year mortality rates of TAo-AVR and TF-AVR patients. The transaortic approach thus constitutes a valid alternative to TF-AVR, but is associated with higher rates of NOAF, bleedings, and transfusion.

Prognostic Impact of Pre-Transcatheter and Post-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Intervention Troponin: A Large Cohort Study

Background Biomarkers were advocated as prognostic factors in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve intervention, with contradictory results concerning prognostic impact of troponin. Our aim was to assess the prognostic impact of preprocedural and postprocedural troponin in transcatheter aortic valve intervention. Methods and Results Preprocedural and postprocedural high-sensitivity troponin levels were measured in all patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve intervention. Primary end point was 1-year mortality. This study included 1390 patients, with a mean age of 83.4±6.8 years. Patients were divided into 3 tertiles according to preprocedural troponin values: tertile 1: 0.001 to 0.023 μg/L; tertile 2: 0.024 to 1.80 μg/L; and T3: 1.81 to 12.1 μg/L. One-year mortality was higher in patients in tertile 2 (hazard ratio, 2.1; P=0.001) and T3 (hazard ratio, 1.8; P=0.009) compared with those in tertile 1. Myocardial injury was predictive of 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.7; P=0.01). This effect may be stronger in the tertile 1 subgroup (hazard ratio, 5.1; P=0.03 [ P value for interaction: 0.18]). Conclusions Elevated preprocedural troponin and myocardial injury are associated with 1-year mortality after transcatheter aortic valve intervention.

Access Sites for TAVI: Patient Selection Criteria, Technical Aspects, and Outcomes

During the last ten years, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a reliable and valid alternative treatment for elderly patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis requiring valve replacement and being at high or intermediate surgical risk. While common femoral arteries are the access site of choice in the vast majority of TAVI patients, in up to 15–20% of TAVI candidates this route might be precluded due to the presence of diffuse atherosclerotic disease, tortuosity or small vessel diameter. Therefore, in order to achieve an antegrade or retrograde implant, several alterative access routes have been described, namely trans-axillary, trans-aortic, trans-apical, trans-carotid, trans-septal, and trans-caval. The aim of this paper is to give a concise overview on vascular access sites for TAVI, with a particular focus on patient's selection criteria, imaging, technical aspects, and clinical outcome.

A Review of Alternative Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

With the advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), appropriately selected intermediate-, high-, and extreme-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) are now offered a less invasive option compared to conventional surgery. In contemporary practice, TAVR is performed predominantly via a transfemoral arterial approach, whereby a transcatheter heart valve (THV) is delivered in a retrograde fashion through the iliofemoral arterial system and thoraco-abdominal aorta, into the native aortic valve annulus. While the majority of patients possess suitable anatomy for transfemoral arterial access, there is a subset of patients with extensive peripheral vascular disease that precludes this traditional approach to TAVR. Fortunately, innovation in the field of structural heart disease has led to the refinement of alternative access options for THV delivery. Selection of the most appropriate route of therapy mandates a careful consideration of multiple factors, including patient anatomy, technical feasibility, and equipment specifications. Furthermore, understanding the risks conferred by each access site for valve delivery-notably stroke, vascular injury, and major bleeding-is of paramount importance when selecting the approach that will best optimize the outcome for an individual. In this review, we provide a comprehensive summary of alternative approaches to transfemoral arterial TAVR as well as the available outcome data supporting each of these various techniques.

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.

Alternate Access for TAVI: Stay Clear of the Chest

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is currently performed through an alternative access in 15% of patients. The transapical access is progressively being abandoned as a result of its invasiveness and poor outcomes. Existing data does not allow TAVI operators to favour one access over another - between transcarotid, trans-subclavian and transaortic - because all have specific strengths and weaknesses. The percutaneous trans-subclavian access might become the main surgery-free alternative access, although further research is needed regarding its safety. Moreover, the difficult learning curve might compromise its adoption. The transcaval access is at an experimental stage and requires the development of dedicated cavo-aortic crossing techniques and closure devices.

Balloon-expandable transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation with or without predilation

OBJECTIVE

It has been reported that balloon aortic valvuloplasty immediately before transfemoral or transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation has mostly little to no clinical value. We aimed to provide data on the need for balloon aortic valvuloplasty in patients undergoing transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

METHODS

Patients undergoing transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Edwards SAPIEN XT (Nyon, Switzerland) or 3 transcatheter heart valve were prospectively included at 18 sites across Europe. In the present analysis, we compare the periprocedural and 30-day outcomes of patients undergoing conventional (+ balloon aortic valvuloplasty) versus direct (- balloon aortic valvuloplasty) transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

RESULTS

Of the 300 patients enrolled, 222 underwent conventional and 78 underwent direct transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Peak and mean transvalvular gradients were improved in both groups with no significant difference between groups. Procedural duration, contrast agent volume, and requirement for postdilation were also comparable. A trend toward fewer periprocedural complications was evident in the direct group (3.9% vs 11.3%; P = .053), with significantly lower rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (0% vs 5.0%; P = .034). Balloon aortic valvuloplasty omission had no significant effect on any of the 30-day safety and efficacy outcomes, including Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 composite end points (early safety events: 22.7% vs 17.4%, odds ratio, 1.17, 95% confidence interval, 0.53-2.62; clinical efficacy events: 20.5% vs 18.7%, odds ratio, 1.14, 95% confidence interval, 0.51-2.55).

CONCLUSIONS

For many patients, balloon aortic valvuloplasty predilation seems to have little clinical value in transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation using a balloon expandable transcatheter valve and may result in a higher rate of periprocedural complications, particularly in terms of permanent pacemaker implantation.

Standard imaging techniques in transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a widely accepted therapeutic option for patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at intermediate, high, or extreme risk for conventional surgery as determined through a heart team approach. Two valve prostheses are currently available and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in the United States for TAVR: the self-expandable Medtronic CoreValve (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) and the balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien Valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine CA, USA). The preoperative evaluation for TAVR includes transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) for the diagnosis of aortic stenosis. Cardiac computed tomography (CTA) has become the imaging modality of choice for annular sizing. Aortic root dimensions and coronary ostia height, and the degree of annular and left ventricular outflow tract calcification are also assessed to estimate the risk of coronary obstruction, annular rupture, and postoperative aortic regurgitation. Finally, CTA is essential to determine the adequacy of the peripheral vasculature for a transfemoral approach. Intraoperatively, fluoroscopy is mandatory for valve positioning, whereas the use of TTE or transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) varies by center. TTE is used for postoperative surveillance of valve function.

Vascular approaches for transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a rapidly evolving therapeutic modality currently available for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) that are unsuitable for surgery because of technical/anatomical issues or high-estimated surgical risk. Transfemoral approach is the preferred TAVI delivery route when possible. Alternative non-transfemoral access options include transaortic, trans-subclavian and transapical access. Other approaches are also feasible (transcarotid, transcaval, and antegrade aortic) but are restricted to operators and hospitals with experience. The peculiarities of each of the vascular approaches designed for TAVI delivery make it necessary to carefully assess patient's atherosclerotic load and location, arterial size and tortuosity, and presence of mural thrombus. Several clinical trials are currently ongoing and in the near future the indications for these approaches will likely be better defined and extended to a broader spectrum of TAVI candidates.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: The year in review 2016

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) continued to make major strides in 2016, simultaneously expanding its application to lower risk patients as well as more technically challenging subsets of patients with aortic stenosis (AS). The two major accomplishments this year were the establishment of TAVR as the preferred treatment strategy over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in intermediate risk patients, and initial signals that TAVR and SAVR may be clinically equivalent in low-risk populations. Meanwhile, there is continued expansion of TAVR to challenging clinical subsets (bicuspid aortic valve [BAV], patients with concomitant advanced coronary artery disease [CAD], and failed surgical bioprostheses), and encouraging initial experiences with newer transcatheter heart valve systems. This paper summarizes the major research studies published on TAVR in 2016.