Outcomes of Combined Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Peripheral Vascular Intervention in the United States

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.

Association Between Polyvascular Disease and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes: Insights From the STS/ACC TVT Registry

BACKGROUND

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is highly prevalent in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Polyvascular disease (PVD), defined as involvement of ≥2 vascular beds (VBs), that is, coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral, portends a poor prognosis in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; however, data on the association of PVD with outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR are limited.

METHODS

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry was analyzed to identify patients who underwent TAVR from November 2011 to March 2022. The exposure of interest was PVD. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included major vascular complications, major/life-threatening bleeding, myocardial infarction, transient ischemic attack/stroke, and valve- and non-valve-related readmissions. Outcomes were assessed at 30 days and 1 year.

RESULTS

Of 443 790 patients who underwent TAVR, PVD was present in 150 823 (34.0%; 111 425 [25.1%] with 2VB-PVD and 39 398 [8.9%] with 3VB-PVD). On multivariable analysis, PVD was associated with increased all-cause mortality at 1 year (hazard ratio, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.14-1.20]). There was an incremental increase in 1-year mortality with an increasing number of VBs involved (no PVD [reference]; 2VB-PVD: hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.09-1.15]: and 3VB-PVD: hazard ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.26-1.36]). Patients with versus without PVD had higher rates of major vascular complications, major/life-threatening bleeding, transient ischemic attack/stroke, and non-valve-related readmissions at 30 days and 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

PVD is associated with worse outcomes after TAVR, and the risk is highest in patients with 3VB-PVD.

Comparison of Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Requiring Peripheral Vascular Intervention or Alternative Access

Background Peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) is occasionally required to facilitate delivery system insertion or to treat vascular complications during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR). However, the impact of PVI on outcomes is not well understood. Therefore, we aimed to compare outcomes between TF-TAVR with versus without PVI and between TF-TAVR with PVI versus non-TF-TAVR. Methods and Results We retrospectively reviewed 2386 patients who underwent TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve at a single institution from 2016 to 2020. The primary outcomes were death and major adverse cardiac/cerebrovascular event (MACCE), defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Of 2246 TF-TAVR recipients, 136 (6.1%) required PVI (89% bailout treatment). During follow-up (median 23.0 months), there were no significant differences between TF-TAVR with and without PVI in death (15.4% versus 20.7%; adjusted HR [aHR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.58-1.58]) or MACCE (16.9% versus 23.0%; aHR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.52-1.36]). However, compared with non-TF-TAVR (n=140), TF-TAVR with PVI carried significantly lower rates of death (15.4% versus 40.7%; aHR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.24-0.75]) and MACCE (16.9% versus 45.0%; aHR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.23-0.68]). Landmark analyses demonstrated lower outcome rates following TF-TAVR with PVI than non-TF-TAVR both within 60 days (death 0.7% versus 5.7%, P=0.019; MACCE 0.7% versus 9.3%; P=0.001) and thereafter (death 15.0% versus 38.9%, P=0.014; MACCE 16.5% versus 41.3%, P=0.013). Conclusions The need for PVI during TF-TAVR is not uncommon, mainly due to the bailout treatment for vascular complications. PVI is not associated with worse outcomes in TF-TAVR recipients. Even when PVI is required, TF-TAVR is associated with better short- and intermediate-term outcomes than non-TF-TAVR.

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 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.

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.

Transcaval Versus Transaxillary TAVR in Contemporary Practice: A Propensity-Weighted Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare transcaval and transaxillary artery access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) at experienced medical centers in contemporary practice.

BACKGROUND

There are no systematic comparisons of transcaval and transaxillary TAVR access routes.

METHODS

Eight experienced centers contributed local data collected for the STS/ACC TVT Registry (Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry) between 2017 and 2020. Outcomes after transcaval and axillary/subclavian (transaxillary) access were adjusted for baseline imbalances using doubly robust (inverse propensity weighting plus regression) estimation and compared.

RESULTS

Transcaval access was used in 238 procedures and transaxillary access in 106; for comparison, transfemoral access was used in 7,132 procedures. Risk profiles were higher among patients selected for nonfemoral access but similar among patients requiring transcaval and transaxillary access. Stroke and transient ischemic attack were 5-fold less common after transcaval than transaxillary access (2.5% vs 13.2%; OR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.06-0.72; P = 0.014) compared with transfemoral access (1.7%). Major and life-threatening bleeding (Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 ≥ type 2) were comparable (10.0% vs 13.2%; OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.26-1.66; P = 0.38) compared with transfemoral access (3.5%), as was blood transfusion (19.3% vs 21.7%; OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.49-2.33; P = 0.87) compared with transfemoral access (7.1%). Vascular complications, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and survival were similar between transcaval and transaxillary access. More patients were discharged directly home and without stroke or transient ischemic attack after transcaval than transaxillary access (87.8% vs 62.3%; OR: 5.19; 95% CI: 2.45-11.0; P < 0.001) compared with transfemoral access (90.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing transcaval TAVR had lower rates of stroke and similar bleeding compared with transaxillary access in a contemporary experience from 8 US centers. Both approaches had more complications than transfemoral access. Transcaval TAVR access may offer an attractive option.