Comparable Outcomes for Transcarotid and Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement at a High Volume US Center

Five-year outcomes of transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TC-TAVR) has emerged as an alternative access route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, scarce data exist on long-term outcomes following TC-TAVR. This study aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes at 5 years after TC-TAVR.

METHODS

A total of 110 consecutive patients who underwent TC-TAVR were included. Baseline, procedural, and follow-up data were collected prospectively in a dedicated database. The primary endpoint was the incidence of a composite outcome of all-cause mortality, stroke, and repeat hospitalization at 5-year follow-up. Echocardiography results, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and quality of life (QoL) as assessed with the EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) were examined over the 5-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 77 years (interquartile range [IQR], 72-82.2 years), 42.3% were women, and the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score was 5.02% (IQR, 3.4%-7.5%). The incidence of the composite primary endpoint was 54.5%. Death from any cause occurred in 45.6% of patients (11.9 per 100 patient-years); stroke in 8.2% (1.9 per 100 patient-years); disabling stroke in 2.7% (0.7 per 100 patient-years); and rehospitalization in 27.2%. The improvements in valve hemodynamics, NYHA class, and EQ-VAS following the procedure persisted at 5-year follow-up (P < .001). The incidence of bioprosthetic valve failure was 0.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

About half of the moderate-to high-risk patients undergoing TC-TAVR survived with no major cardiovascular events at the 5-year follow-up. The yearly incidence of stroke events was low, and early improvements in valve hemodynamics, functional status, and QoL persisted at 5 years. These results suggest the long-term safety and efficacy of TC-TAVR and would support this approach as an alternative to surgery in non-transfemoral candidates.

Alternative Access for TAVR: Choosing the Right Pathway

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an alternative treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis regardless of surgical risk, particularly in those with a high and prohibitive risk. Since the advent of TAVR, transfemoral access has been the standard of care. However, given comorbidities and anatomical limitations, a proportion of patients are not good candidates for a transfemoral approach. Alternative access, including transapical, transaortic, transaxillary, transsubclavian, transcarotid, and transcaval, can be considered. Each alternative access has advantages and disadvantages, so the vascular route should be tailored to the patient's characteristics. However, there is no standardized algorithm when choosing the optimal alternative vascular access. In this review, we analyzed the evolution and current evidence for the most common alternative access for TAVR and proposed an algorithm for choosing the optimal vascular access in this patient population.

Survival outcomes of TAVR and self-expanding versus balloon-expandable valves in patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction

AIMS

There is a growing body of literature on long-term outcomes post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), but to our knowledge, few research have focused on patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction. This challenging category of patients was excluded from the Partner 3 clinical trial. There are no data to guide the choice of valve type in patients with severely depressed ejection fraction. This study evaluates the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of TAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35%. It compares post-TAVR survival outcomes with self-expanding (SEV) versus balloon-expandable (BEV) valves in the context of cardiac dysfunction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A retrospective cohort was conducted on 977 patients who underwent TAVR at Toulouse University Hospital between January 2016 and December 2020. The study population included two groups: LVEF ≤ 35% (N = 157) and LVEF ≥ 50% (N = 820). The group of LVEF ≤ 35% was divided into two subgroups according to the type of implanted device: self-expanding (N = 66) versus balloon-expandable (N = 91). The living status of each of study's participants was observed in December 2022. Patients with low ejection fraction were younger (82 vs. 84.6 years) and commonly males (71.3% vs. 45.6%). Procedural success was almost 98% in both study groups (97.5% vs. 97.9%). The prevalence of all in-hospital post-TAVR complications [acute kidney injury (3.8% vs. 2.2%), major bleeding events (2.5% vs. 3.2%), stroke (1.3% vs. 1.6%), pacemaker implantation (10.2% vs. 10.7%), major vascular complication (4.5% vs. 4.5%), new onset atrial fibrillation (3.2% vs. 3.4%), and in-hospital death (3.2% vs. 2.8%)] were similar between groups (LVEF ≤ 35% vs. LVEF ≥ 50%). No difference in long-term survival has been revealed over 3.4 years (P = 0.268). In patients with LVEF ≤ 35%, except for post-TAVR mean aortic gradient (7.8 ± 4.2 vs. 10.2 ± 3.6), baseline and procedural characteristics were comparable between SEV versus BEV subgroups. An early improvement in LVEF (from 29.2 ± 5.5 to 37.4 ± 10.8) was observed. In patients with LVEF ≤ 35%, the all-cause mortality rate was significantly higher in BEV than that in SEV subgroups, respectively (40.7% vs. 22.7%, P = 0.018). Kaplan-Meier curve showed better survival outcomes after SEV implantation (P = 0.032). A Cox regression identified BEV as independent predictor of mortality [HR = 3.276, 95% CI (1.520-7.060), P = 0.002].

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of low LVEF, TAVR remains a safe and effective procedure not associated with an increased risk of complications and mortality. SEV implantation may likely result in superior survival outcomes in patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction.

Trans-femoral versus trans-carotid access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: This meta-analysis aims to shed light on any primacy the trans-carotid (TC-TAVR) access may have over the trans-femoral access (TF-TAVR) for those undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane Library were searched, from inception to March 2023 retrieving seven adjusted studies with a total of 6609 patients, of which 5048 underwent TF-TAVR while 1561 underwent TC-TAVR. Results: No divergence in risk of mortality, major bleeding or stroke/transient ischemic attack in TC-TAVR when compared with TF-TAVR was found. In TC-TAVR, the risk of vascular complications was low (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.32-0.83, p = 0.003) as compared with TF-TAVR. Conclusion: As of this analysis, the viability of TC-TAVR as first alternative to TF-TAVR is plausible.

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.

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.