Transcarotid Approach for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Sapien 3 Prosthesis

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.

Trans-Brachial TAVI in a Patient with Aortic Isthmus Stenosis: A Case Report

BACKGROUND

TAVI indications expand not only to low-risk patients but also to patients with a more complex anatomy and comorbidities. Transfemoral retrograde access is recognized as the first preferred approach according to the current guidelines. However, this approach is not suitable in up to 10-15% of patients, for whom an alternative non-femoral access route is required.

CASE PRESENTATION

An 83-year-old male patient with known aortic isthmus stenosis presented with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Computed tomography revealed a subtotal isthmus stenosis, directly after left subclavian artery origin, with many collaterals extending toward the axillary and subclavian arteries. Duplex ultrasound verified the proximal diameter of the left brachial artery to be 5.5 mm. A successful surgical cutdown trans-brachial TAVI with an Evolut prosthetic valve with a size of 29 mm was performed. On the fourth postoperative day, the patient was discharged, and the three-month follow-up was uneventful.

CONCLUSION

In patients with aortic isthmus stenosis, the brachial artery could be a feasible alternative, as a less invasive access site, which can be determined after careful assessment of the vessel diameter. More data are required to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this access route and to achieve more technical improvements to increase operator familiarity with it.

Transcarotid versus transaxillary access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement with a self-expanding valve: A propensity-matched analysis

Transaxillary access has been the most frequently used nonfemoral access route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding valve. Use of transcarotid TAVR is increasing; however, comparative data on these methods are limited. We compared outcomes following transcarotid or transaxillary TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular valve.

Methods

The Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry was queried for TAVR procedures using transaxillary and transcarotid access between July 2015 and June 2021. Patients received a self-expanding Evolut R, PRO, or PRO + valve (Medtronic) and had 1-year follow-up. Thirty-day and 1-year outcomes were compared in transcarotid and transaxillary groups after 1:2 propensity score-matching. Multivariable regression models were fitted to identify predictors of key end points.

Results

The propensity score-matched cohort included 576 patients receiving transcarotid and 1142 receiving transaxillary access. Median procedure time (99 vs 118 minutes; P < .001) and hospital stay (2 vs 3 days; P < .001) were shorter with transcarotid versus transaxillary access. At 30 days, patients with transcarotid access had similar mortality (Kaplan-Meier estimates 3.7% vs 4.3%, P = .57) but significantly lower stroke (3.1% vs 5.9%; P = .017) and mortality or stroke (6.0% vs 8.9%; P = .033) compared with patients receiving transaxillary access. Similar differences were observed at 1 year. Transaxillary access was associated with increased risk of 30-day stroke (hazard ratio, 2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-3.58) by multivariable regression analysis.

Conclusions

Transcarotid versus transaxillary access for TAVR using a self-expanding valve is associated with procedural benefits and significantly lower stroke and mortality or stroke at 30 days. In patients with unsuitable femoral anatomy, transcarotid access may be the preferred delivery route for self-expanding valves.

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.

Outcomes of Alternative Access Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Procedures

Alternative access transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) consists primarily of 4 different options: transcaval, transaxillary, transcarotid, and transapical. While many centers have a preferred alternative access site, few papers have compared the outcomes of TAVR with each alternative access site. In this review, we examine the outcomes of TAVR at each alternative access site, focusing on mortality, stroke, bleeding, pacemaker insertion, paravalvular leakage, and discharge to home. Notable findings include higher mortality in the transapical group and higher stroke rate in the transaxillary group. On the basis of these data, we suggest that transcarotid TAVR might represent the second choice of approach for TAVR when alternate access is required.

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.

Surgical External Iliac Artery Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Is a Safe, Suitable Alternative to Common Femoral Artery Access

Background Many patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have peripheral artery disease necessitating surgical access. This study reviews the preoperative risk factors, procedural characteristics, and outcomes in patients undergoing surgical common femoral artery (CFA) and external iliac artery (EIA) access through a retro-inguinal groin incision for TAVR. Methods A single-center TAVR database was retrospectively analyzed for patients undergoing surgical cutdown (January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2020). Access sites were evaluated on preoperative imaging. Data on demographics, imaging, procedural characteristics, and outcomes were collected. The vascular surgeon selected the cutdown site. Results A hundred and thirty TAVR patients had surgical cutdown. The choice of access site was either the common femoral artery (82 patients, 63%) or the iliac artery (48 patients, 37%). There was no difference in age, BMI, or medical risk factors. There was no difference in iliac diameter or circumferential iliac calcium. In the iliac group, there was a smaller mean CFA size and a higher incidence of circumferential CFA calcium. In the femoral group, there was: a lower mean sheath-to-CFA ratio, a trend toward increased unplanned endarterectomy, and a higher incidence of 30-day readmission. There was no difference in adjunct procedure use. Conclusion EIA surgical access had similar complication rates and length of stay with a reduced tendency for unplanned endarterectomy when compared to CFA access. The EIA is a suitable access site for TAVR in select patients.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid vs. Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis among Patients at Low Surgical Risk in China: From the Multicenter National NTCVR Database

BACKGROUND

This study aims to compare the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with self-expandable valves for bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) vs. tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis patients who are at low surgical risk.

METHODS

Participants were enrolled from 36 centers in China between January 2017 and December 2021. The primary endpoint event was all-cause mortality and all stroke at 30 days.

RESULTS

Among 389 patients at low surgical risk that underwent TAVR, 229 patients were BAV stenosis (mean age, 72.9 years; 65.1% men). There was no significant difference in the rate of all-cause death between two populations at 30 days. However, the rate of all stroke was significantly higher in the BAV group at 30 days (3.3% vs. 0%; odds ratio (OR), 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.94 to 0.99); p = 0.044). By multivariate logistic regression analysis, trans-carotid access was associated with a higher all stroke rate at 30 days (OR, 29.20 (95% CI, 3.97 to 215.1); p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this national registry-based study, patients treated for BAV vs. TAV stenosis had no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days, but trans-carotid access was associated with a higher all stroke rate after TAVR at 30 days.

Association Between Peripheral Versus Central Access for Alternative Access Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Mortality and Stroke: A Report From the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry

BACKGROUND

In some patients, the alternative access route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is utilized because the conventional transfemoral approach is not felt to be either feasible or optimal. However, accurate prognostication of patient risks is not well established. This study examines the associations between peripheral (transsubclavian/transaxillary, and transcarotid) versus central access (transapical and transaortic) in alternative access TAVR and 30-day and 1-year end points of mortality and stroke for all valve platforms.

METHODS

Using data from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry with linkage to Medicare claims, patients who underwent alternative access TAVR from June 1, 2015 to June 30, 2018 were identified. Adjusted and unadjusted Cox proportional hazards modeling were performed to determine the association between alternate access TAVR site and 30-day and 1-year end points of mortality and stroke.

RESULTS

Of 7187 alternative access TAVR patients, 3725 (52%) had peripheral access and 3462 (48%) had central access. All-cause mortality was significantly lower in peripheral access versus central access group at in-hospital and 1 year (2.9% versus 6.3% and 20.3% versus 26.6%, respectively), but stroke rates were higher (5.0% versus 2.8% and 7.3% versus 5.5%, respectively; all P<0.001). These results persisted after 1-year adjustment (death adjusted hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.62-0.85] and stroke adjusted hazard ratio, 2.92 [95% CI, 2.21-3.85]). When broken down by individual subtypes, compared with transaxillary/subclavian access patients, transapical, and transaortic access patients had higher all-cause mortality but less stroke (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world, contemporary, nationally representative benchmarking study of alternate access TAVR sites, peripheral access was associated with favorable mortality and morbidity outcomes compared with central access, at the expense of higher stroke. These findings may allow for accurate prognostication of risk for patient counseling and decision-making for the heart team with regard to alternative access TAVR.

Transfemoral versus transcarotid access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Objectives

To compare the outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) through a transfemoral (TF) and transcarotid (TC) access at our institution.

Methods

From January 2014 to January 2020, 62 TC-TAVR and 449 TF-TAVR were performed using 2 prosthesis devices (Edwards SAPIEN 3, n = 369; Medtronic Evolut R, n = 142). Propensity score matching was used to adjust for imbalance in the baseline characteristics of the study groups.

Results

Propensity score matching provided 62 matched pairs with comparable operative risk (mean European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II, TC-TAVR 7.6% vs TF-TAVR 6.6%, P = .17). Thirty-day mortality (4.8% vs 3.2%, P = 1.00) and 2-year mortality (11.3% vs 12.9%, P = .64) after TC-TAVR were comparable with TF-TAVR. Strokes were numerically more frequent after TC-TAVR compared with TF-TAVR (3.2% vs 0%, P = .23), but the difference did not reach statistical significance. TF-TAVR was associated with a significantly greater risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (29.0% vs 12.9%, P = .04) compared with TC-TAVR. Other complications were not frequent and were similarly distributed between the matched groups.

Conclusions

TC access for TAVR was associated with satisfactory results compared to the femoral access. TC-TAVR could be considered a valid and safe alternative to TF-TAVR when femoral access is contraindicated.

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.

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.

Transcarotid Approach to Placement of an Impella 5.0

Microaxial left ventricular assist devices (mLVADs) have traditionally been placed through a transfemoral or transaxillary arterial approach. Transfemoral access is restrictive, significantly limiting postoperative patient ambulation. Transaxillary placement is preferred but not feasible in a subset of patients due to small arterial diameter or tight angulation of the thoracic outlet. Transcarotid delivery has been utilized for other cardiovascular device deployment with good success; however, this approach has not been described for mLVAD support. We present a case series of transcarotid placement of mLVADs in cases where a transaxillary and transfemoral approach was not feasible. From May 2017 to April 2019, six patients in cardiogenic shock required mLVAD support achieved via a transcarotid approach. Technical success was achieved in all patients. One patient was directly weaned from mLVAD support and two patients died on mLVAD support. Escalation to venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) was required for three patients, two of whom subsequently died. There were no bleeding or valvular complications related to device placement, and no obvious or known neurologic complications related to mLVAD support. Transcarotid placement of mLVADs expands the utility of these devices as an alternative to traditional support strategies or prohibitive arterial anatomy; however, further study is needed to determine its efficacy.

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.

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.

Transcarotid Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in an Octogenarian With Complex Type B Aortic Dissection and Aneurysm: A Case Report

We report the case of an octogenarian with severe aortic valve stenosis, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure. Due to advanced CKD, we used a 3-dimensional transesophageal echocardiogram for sizing the device before transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Noncontrast computed tomography found complex aortic dissection involving the arch, descending thoracic aorta, and abdominal aorta. TAVR was approached via the right carotid artery using a CoreValve. There was no cerebral vascular event. Renal function was well preserved. Transcarotid TAVR can be performed safely with complex type B aortic dissection. Three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiogram provides an alternative sizing solution in advanced CKD.

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.

Suprasternal Versus Transfemoral Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From a Propensity Score Matched Analysis

Background Suprasternal access is an alternative access strategy for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) where the innominate artery is cannulated from an incision above the sternal notch. To date, suprasternal access has never been compared with transfemoral TAVR. Thus, we sought to assess safety, feasibility, and early clinical outcomes between suprasternal and transfemoral access for patients undergoing TAVR. Methods and Results We evaluated patients from 2 institutional prospective, observational registries containing 1348 patients. Patients were selected in a 2:1 ratio (transfemoral:suprasternal) on the basis of propensity score matching. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes included the incidence of ischemic stroke, major bleeding, vascular injury, left bundle-branch block, and permanent pacemaker implantation at 30-day follow-up. Propensity score matching identified 89 patients undergoing suprasternal TAVR and 159 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR suitable for analysis. There was no significant difference between suprasternal TAVR and transfemoral TAVR with respect to in-hospital mortality (1.1% versus 0.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.80; 95% CI, 0.11-29.06; P=0.680). No patients in either cohort suffered an ischemic stroke. The incidence of major bleeding (2.2% versus 2.5%; OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.16-4.96; P=0.895) and vascular injury (1.1% versus 1.9%; OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.06-5.77; P=0.651) did not differ significantly. The frequency of left bundle-branch block (9.4% versus 15.8%; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.24-1.30; P=0.177) and permanent pacemaker implantation (11.2% versus 5.9%; OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.75-5.45; P=0.169) were not statistically significantly different. Conclusions Suprasternal TAVR was safe and achieved promising short-term clinical outcomes when compared with transfemoral TAVR. Future studies seeking to identify the optimal alternative access site should evaluate suprasternal TAVR access alongside other substitutes for transfemoral TAVR.

Transapical approach versus transcervical approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a retrospective monocentric study

OBJECTIVES

Transfemoral approach is the standard access-route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, alternative approaches are needed in a number of patients and accesses such as transapical (TA) TAVR or transcervical (TC) are used. We aimed to compare clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after TA-TAVR or TC-TAVR.

METHODS

All patients who underwent TA- and TC-TAVR for severe aortic stenosis in our institution between 2008 and 2020 were retrospectively included. End points included 30-day all-cause mortality, procedural complications (according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria), procedure duration, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) and overall hospital LOS. For 30-day all-cause mortality, we furthermore used a Cox proportional-hazards model to adjust for significant between-group differences in baseline characteristics as well as difference in year of intervention.

RESULTS

TAVR was performed in 176 patients, using a TA approach (n = 127) or a TC approach (n = 49). Baseline clinical and echocardiographic characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups, except age and peripheral artery disease. All-cause 30-day mortality rates were not significantly different (8.5% in the TA group vs 2.3% in the TC group, P = 0.124). TC approach was associated with significantly shorter procedure duration {71.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 52.5-101.0] vs 93 [IQR 80.0-120.0] min, P < 0.001}, shorter ICU LOS [0.0 (IQR 0.0-0.0) vs 1.0 (IQR 1.0-3.0) days, P < 0.001] and shorter hospital LOS [7.0 (IQR 5.0-9.5) vs 14.0 (IQR 10.0-22.0) days, P < 0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

The TC approach may be a good first-choice alternative in case of contraindications to transfemoral-TAVR.

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.

Transcarotid Versus Transaxillary/Subclavian Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR): Analysis of Outcomes

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the percutaneous management of valvular heart disease and has evolved to progressively minimalist techniques over the past decade. This review discusses the impact of minimalist TAVR, explores the alternative approaches when transfemoral (TF) TAVR is not possible, and analyzes the current outcomes of transcarotid (TC) versus transaxillary/subclavian (TAx) TAVR, which are the two leading nonfemoral (NF) approaches emerging as the preferred alternatives to TF TAVR.

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes and Carotid Ultrasound Follow-Up of Transcarotid TAVI. Prospective Single-Center Registry

This study aimed to prospectively evaluate the safety and long-term clinical outcomes of cerebral-oximetry-guided transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TC-TAVI) with systematic follow-up with carotid ultrasound. Thirty-three TCTAVI procedures were performed in our center from 2017 to 2019. Our analysis includes in-hospital outcomes and long-term follow-up data on mortality, echocardiographic parameters, carotid Doppler ultrasound, and VARC-2 defined clinical events. Intraoperatively, one patient died, and one had a transient ischemic attack (TIA). The following events occurred in-hospital postoperatively: myocardial infarction (3.0%), cardiac tamponade (3.0%), new-onset atrial fibrillation (6.3%), need for temporary pacing (27.3%) and need for pacemaker implantation (15%). The mean follow-up was 19.5 ± 9.52 months. In the long-term follow-up, the two-year survival rate was 83% ± 14. The echocardiographic parameters did not differ significantly from the postprocedural values, and the ultrasound did not show any cases of significant vessel narrowing. The mean peak systolic velocity (PSV) was 71.6 cm/s in the left common carotid artery and 70.6 cm/s in the right common carotid artery. In conclusion, cerebral oximetry-guided TC access is safe, has a favorable long-term outcome, and does not increase the risk of plaque formation in the carotid artery. In a carefully selected group of patients, it might be considered as a first-choice alternative to TF access.

Carotid versus femoral access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: comparable results in the current era

OBJECTIVES

The carotid approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to be feasible and safe. The goal of this study was to compare the 30-day outcomes of trans-carotid (TC) and transfemoral (TF) TAVR.

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 500 consecutive patients treated by TC-TAVR (n = 100) or TF-TAVR (n = 400) with percutaneous closure between January 2018 and January 2020 at the Nantes University Hospital. The primary end-point was the occurrence of cardiovascular death and cerebrovascular events at 30 days.

RESULTS

The mean age was 79.9 ± 8.1 in the TC group and 81.3 ± 6.9 (P = 0.069) in the TF group. The TC group had more men (69% vs 50.5%; P = 0.001) and more patients with peripheral vascular disease (86% vs 14.8%; P < 0.0001). Cardiac characteristics were similar between the groups, and the EuroSCORE II was 3.8 ± 2.6% vs 4.6 ± 6.0%, respectively (P = 0.443). The 30-day mortality was 2% in the TC group versus 1% in the TF group (P = 0.345). TC-TAVR was not associated with an increased risk of stroke (2% vs 2.5%; P = 0.999) or major vascular complications (2% vs 4%; P = 0.548). More permanent pacemakers were implanted in the TF group (14.9% vs 5.6%; P = 0.015), and no moderate or severe aortic regurgitation was observed in the TC group (0 vs 3.3%; P = 0.08). TC-TAVR was not associated with an increased risk of mortality or stroke at 30 days (odds ratio 1.32; 95% confidence interval 0.42-4.21; P = 0.63) in the multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

No statistically significant differences between TC-TAVR and TF-TAVR were observed; therefore, TC-TAVR should be the first alternative in patients with anatomical contraindications to the femoral route.

Transcervical approach versus transfemoral approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

The transfemoral (TF) approach is the gold-standard access route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Alternative approaches, among which the transcervical (TC) approach, are needed in some patients. We aimed to compare TC-TAVR with TF-TAVR.

METHODS

All patients who underwent TAVR in our institution between 2016 and 2020, using Edwards SAPIEN family balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves, were retrospectively included. Endpoints included 30-day all-cause mortality, procedural complications (according to the VARC-2 criteria), procedure duration, hospital length of stay (LOS) and echocardiographic outcomes. For 30-day all-cause mortality, we furthermore used a Cox proportional-hazards model to adjust for significant between-group differences in baseline characteristics as well as anesthesia modality.

RESULTS

TAVR was performed in 306 patients, using a TF approach (n = 255) or a TC approach (n = 51). TC-TAVR was associated with significantly higher STS scores (4.06 [IQR (interquartile range), 2.05, 5.56] vs. 2.97 [IQR, 2.08, 4.88], p < 0.001) and higher prevalence of peripheral artery disease, history of stroke, previous cardiovascular surgery. 30-day mortality (hazard ratio, 0.87 [0.77, 9.77], p = 0.909) and stroke rates (2.0% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.840) were similar, as well as procedural duration (74.0 [53.0, 99.5] vs. 77.0 [58.0, 98.0] minutes, p = 0.370), LOS (6.0 [IQR, 3.0, 8.0] vs. 6.0 [IQR, 4.0, 9.0] days, p = 0.175) and postprocedural mean transvalvular gradient (10.00 [IQR, 8.00, 13.00] vs. 10.00 [IQR, 8.00, 12.00] mmHg, p = 0.724).

CONCLUSION

Despite a higher cardiovascular disease burden in TC patients, TC-TAVR and TF-TAVR yielded similar outcomes. TC-TAVR may be a safe alternative when TF-TAVR is contraindicated.

A step-by-step guide to trans-axillary transcatheter aortic valve replacement

The application of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has expanded rapidly over the last decade as a less invasive option for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis. In order to perform successful TAVR, vascular access must be obtained with a large-bore catheter to deliver the transcatheter valve to the aortic annulus. Several techniques have been developed for this purpose including transfemoral (TF), trans-aortic, trans-apical, trans-caval, trans-carotid, and trans-axillary (TAx) with varying degrees of success. Among them, TF access is the most common and preferred method owing to its superior and well-established outcomes. However, in the setting of diseased iliofemoral arterial vessels, severe tortuosity, or iliofemoral arteries of insufficient caliber, TF access may not be possible. In these scenarios, one of the aforementioned alternative access routes needs to be considered. TAx-TAVR is an attractive alternative because it can be accomplished via access to a peripheral vessel as opposed to needing to enter the pericardial space or thoracic cavity. In addition, the open surgical cut-down procedure used to expose the axillary artery is familiar to cardiac surgeons who are accustomed to cannulating it for cardiopulmonary bypass. With advancements in TAVR technology including the evolution of delivery systems and corresponding smaller sheath sizes, total percutaneous access via the axillary artery is gaining substantial attention. In this review, we outline key aspects of patient selection, imaging and procedural techniques, and examine contemporary clinical outcomes with this approach.

Axillary Access TAVR: Entrapment of a Transcatheter Aortic Valve in the Innominate Artery With Aortic Dissection

Non-femoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is indicated when peripheral vascular disease is diagnosed. We describe the "double-stick" technique via the axillary artery. During the procedure, the pigtail coiled around the TAVR system. While retracting the TAVR sheath, the seam along system split dislodging the valve from the balloon. The valve was entrapped in the innominate artery, and an aortic dissection required surgery. With the double-stick technique, friction and resistance between the pigtail and delivery system must be avoided. Pre-procedural planning and early identification is paramount. Smaller and more seamless delivery systems may reduce risk for dissection and entrapment.

Indications, contraindications, and safety aspects of procedural sedation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is a steadily increasing demand for procedural sedation outside the operating room, frequently performed in comorbid high-risk adult patients. This review evaluates the feasibility and advantages of sedation vs. general anesthesia for some of these new procedures.

RECENT FINDINGS

Generally, sedation performed by experienced staff is safe. Although for some endoscopic or transcatheter interventions sedation is feasible, results of the intervention might be improved when performed under general anesthesia. For elected procedures like intra-arterial treatment after acute ischemic stroke, avoiding general anesthesia and sedation at all might be the optimal treatment.

SUMMARY

Anesthesiologists are facing continuously new indications for procedural sedation in sometimes sophisticated diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. Timely availability of anesthesia staff will mainly influence who is performing sedation, anesthesia or nonanesthesia personal. While the number of absolute contraindications for sedation decreased to almost zero, relative contraindications are becoming more relevant and should be tailored to the individual procedure and patient.

Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

There are scant data on long-term clinical outcomes and bioprosthetic-valve function after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and intermediate surgical risk.

METHODS

We enrolled 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at 57 centers. Patients were stratified according to intended transfemoral or transthoracic access (76.3% and 23.7%, respectively) and were randomly assigned to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement. Clinical, echocardiographic, and health-status outcomes were followed for 5 years. The primary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke.

RESULTS

At 5 years, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death from any cause or disabling stroke between the TAVR group and the surgery group (47.9% and 43.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.25; P = 0.21). Results were similar for the transfemoral-access cohort (44.5% and 42.0%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.20), but the incidence of death or disabling stroke was higher after TAVR than after surgery in the transthoracic-access cohort (59.3% vs. 48.3%; hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.71). At 5 years, more patients in the TAVR group than in the surgery group had at least mild paravalvular aortic regurgitation (33.3% vs. 6.3%). Repeat hospitalizations were more frequent after TAVR than after surgery (33.3% vs. 25.2%), as were aortic-valve reinterventions (3.2% vs. 0.8%). Improvement in health status at 5 years was similar for TAVR and surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with aortic stenosis who were at intermediate surgical risk, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death or disabling stroke at 5 years after TAVR as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01314313.).