Alternative access for balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Comparison of the transaortic approach using right anterior thoracotomy to partial J-sternotomy

Direct aortic route versus transaxillary route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The transfemoral route is contraindicated in nearly 10% of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) candidates because of unsuitable iliofemoral vessels. Transaxillary (TAx) and direct aortic (DAo) routes are the principal nonfemoral TAVR routes; however, few studies have compared their outcomes.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the rates of mortality, stroke, and other adverse events of TAx and DAo TAVR. The study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42017069788). We searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for studies reporting the outcomes of DAo or TAx TAVR in at least 10 patients. Studies that did not use the Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions were excluded. We included studies that did not directly compare the two approaches and then pooled rates of events from the included studies for comparison.

Results

In total, 31 studies were included in the quantitative meta-analysis, with 2,883 and 2,172 patients in the DAo and TAx TAVR groups, respectively. Compared with TAx TAVR, DAo TAVR had a lower Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) score, shorter fluoroscopic time, and less contrast volume use. The 30-day mortality rates were significantly higher in the DAo TAVR group (9.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [8.4–10.9]) than in the TAx TAVR group (5.7%, 95% CI = [4.8–6.8]; P for heterogeneity <0.001). DAo TAVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of stroke in the overall study population (2.6% vs. 5.8%, P for heterogeneity <0.001) and in the subgroup of studies with a mean STS score of ≥8 (1.6% vs. 6.2%, P for heterogeneity = 0.005). DAo TAVR was also associated with lower risks of permanent pacemaker implantation (12.3% vs. 20.1%, P for heterogeneity = 0.009) and valve malposition (2.0% vs. 10.2%, P for heterogeneity = 0.023) than was TAx TAVR.

Conclusions

DAo TAVR increased 30-day mortality rate compared with TAx TAVR; by contrast, TAx TAVR increased postoperative stroke, permanent pacemaker implantation, and valve malposition risks compared with DAo TAVR.

A meta-analysis on clinical outcomes after transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation by the Heart Team

AIMS

We aimed to perform a meta-analysis on transaortic (TAo) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in order to gain more insight into the safety and efficacy of the approach in addition to the data available from selected centres with small numbers of patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PubMed and EMBASE were searched on 31 August 2016. The search yielded 251 studies, of which 16 with 1,907 patients were included in the meta-analysis. All were observational, single-arm studies. The rate of conversion to sternotomy was 3.2% (95% CI: 2.3-3.5%; I2=0) among nine studies. Device success among 10 studies was 91% (95% CI: 86.7-94.0%; I2=25.5). Major vascular complications occurred at a rate of 3.1% (95% CI: 1.6-6.0%; I2=60.8). Moderate or severe paravalvular leakage/aortic valve regurgitation (PVL/AR) was reported to be 6.7% (95% CI: 4.3-10.1%; I2=58.9). Permanent pacemaker implantation was required in 11.7% (95% CI: 9.2-14.8%; I2=26.5) of patients. Pooled 30-day post-TAVI complication rates were 9.9% (95% CI: 8.6-11.3%; I2=0) for mortality, 3.7% (95% CI: 2.4-5.6%; I2=28.7) for all stroke, and 1.0% for myocardial infarction (95% CI: 0.5-1.7%; I2=0). The Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) composite safety endpoint occurred at a pooled rate of 16.7% (95% CI: 10.6-25.3%; I2=58.7).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis of observational studies, transaortic TAVI appears to be a safe procedure with low complication rates.

Learning curves for transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the PARTNER-I trial: Technical performance, success, and safety

OBJECTIVES

Introduction of hybrid techniques, such as transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TA-TAVR), requires skills that a heart team must master to achieve technical efficiency: the technical performance learning curve. To date, the learning curve for TA-TAVR remains unknown. We therefore evaluated the rate at which technical performance improved, assessed change in occurrence of adverse events in relation to technical performance, and determined whether adverse events after TA-TAVR were linked to acquiring technical performance efficiency (the learning curve).

METHODS

From April 2007 to February 2012, 1100 patients, average age 85.0 ± 6.4 years, underwent TA-TAVR in the PARTNER-I trial. Learning curves were defined by institution-specific patient sequence number using nonlinear mixed modeling.

RESULTS

Mean procedure time decreased from 131 to 116 minutes within 30 cases (P = .06) and device success increased to 90% by case 45 (P = .0007). Within 30 days, 354 patients experienced a major adverse event (stroke in 29, death in 96), with possibly decreased complications over time (P ∼ .08). Although longer procedure time was associated with more adverse events (P < .0001), these events were associated with change in patient risk profile, not the technical performance learning curve (P = .8).

CONCLUSIONS

The learning curve for TA-TAVR was 30 to 45 procedures performed, and technical efficiency was achieved without compromising patient safety. Although fewer patients are now undergoing TAVR via nontransfemoral access, understanding TA-TAVR learning curves and their relationship with outcomes is important as the field moves toward next-generation devices, such as those to replace the mitral valve, delivered via the left ventricular apex.