TAVI : une revue de la littérature des voies alternatives à l’accès trans-fémoral

Outcomes and Safety of Transcaval Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The transcaval (TCv) vascular approach is increasingly used in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients unsuitable for the gold-standard transfemoral approach. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and clinical outcomes associated with TCv-TAVR.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by searching PubMed/Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for all articles assessing the TCv approach published through December 2023. Outcomes included 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality (ACM), 30-day rehospitalisation, perioperative complications and postoperative complications at 30 days. The meta-analysis was registered on the PROSPERO database with the identifier CRD42024501921.

RESULTS

A total of 8 studies with 467 patients were included. TCv-TAVR procedures achieved a success rate of 98.5%. TCv-TAVR was associated with a 30-day ACM rate of 6.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.9%-8.2%), a 1-year ACM rate of 14.9% (95% CI 2.3%-27.6%) and a 30-day rehospitalisation rate of 4.2% (95% CI -2.2% to 10.6%). Postoperative stroke or transient ischemic attack, major vascular complications, and major or life-threatening bleeding occurred in 3.3%, 8.7%, and 7.5% of cases, respectively. Cumulative meta-analyses showed a temporal trend of decreasing rates of vascular complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The TCv approach in TAVR demonstrated a reassuring efficacy and safety profile, with mortality and postoperative complication rates similar to those reported for supra-aortic alternative TAVR access routes. The temporal decrease in vascular complications suggests potential improvements in procedural techniques and device technology. These findings further support the TCv approach as a viable option in patients ineligible for the transfemoral access.

PROSPERO

CRD42024501921.

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.

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.