Transaortic TAVI Is a Valid Alternative to Transapical Approach

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Access Sites: Same Goals, Distinct Aspects, Various Merits and Demerits

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been established as a safe and efficacious treatment for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). Despite being initially developed and indicated for high-surgical-risk patients, it is now offered to low-risk populations based on the results of large randomized controlled trials. The most common access sites in the vast majority of patients undergoing TAVI are the common femoral arteries; however, 10-20% of the patients treated with TAVI require an alternative access route, mainly due to peripheral atherosclerotic disease or complex anatomy. Hence, to achieve successful delivery and implantation of the valve, several arterial approaches have been studied, including transcarotid (TCr), axillary/subclavian (A/Sc), transapical (TAp), transaortic (TAo), suprasternal-brachiocephalic (S-B), and transcaval (TCv). This review aims to concisely summarize the most recent literature data and current guidelines as well as evaluate the various access routes for TAVI, focusing on the indications, the various special patient groups, and the advantages and disadvantages of each technique, as well as their adverse events.

Surgical transcatheter valve implantation: The more pathways, the better

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is rapidly spreading across the world with the endorsement of the cardiological community and the supporting results of randomized controlled trials. However, TAVI-related complications like aortic dissection, aortic valvular rupture, or left ventricle perforation are still potentially catastrophic.

Current Trends in TAVI Access

The optimal approach for Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the transfemoral access but alternative TAVI approaches offer the possibility of valve replacement in patients who are not eligible to the transfemoral route. This review paper intends to compare the current available alternative approaches for TAVI in terms of their safety and efficacy, based on the current literature. The transapical, transaortic, transsubclavian, transcarotid, transcaval and suprasternal approaches have been analyzed. The choice of the alternative approach dependents on local Heart Team expertise, patient specific characteristics, access specific characteristics and the need or not for general anesthesia. More studies are needed to investigate the impact of each individual approach on long-term outcomes.

Safety and efficacy of transaxillary transcatheter aortic valve replacement using a current-generation balloon-expandable valve

Background

Transaxillary access (TAx) has shown promise as an excellent alternative TAVR option, but data on the Edwards SAPIEN 3 in TAx-TAVR is limited. We sought to study the safety and efficacy of TAx-TAVR using this current-generation balloon-expandable valve.

Methods

A retrospective study of our first 24 TAx and 20 transthoracic (TT) TAVR patients treated with the SAPIEN 3 valve was performed, and the patients’ preoperative characteristics, procedural outcomes, and clinical outcomes were compared to our first 100 transfemoral (TF) patients using the SAPIEN 3 device.

Results

There were no statistical differences observed for outcomes between the TAx and TF groups, despite the TAx patients having more comorbidities (STS-PROM 11.3 ± 7.6 versus 7.3 ± 5.2, p = 0.042). In addition, no significant difference was found in the fluoroscopy time and contrast amount between the two groups. The patients’ baseline characteristics were similar between the TAx and TT groups. Their procedural and clinical outcomes were comparable, but there was a trend towards lower incidence of acute kidney injury (13.0% versus 23.5%), new-onset atrial fibrillation (5.6% versus 33.3%), shorter median length of stay postoperatively (4 versus 6 days), fewer discharges to rehabilitation (16.7% versus 35.0%), and a lower rate of readmission within 30-days (8.3% versus 35.0%), all favoring TAx access.

Conclusions

TAx-TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve is a safe alternative to TF access. It offers advantages of improved recovery over TT access, and appears to be a superior alternative-access option for TAVR. TAx access could be preferred when TF access is not feasible.

The best way to transcatheter aortic valve implantation: From standard to new approaches

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a safe and beneficial treatment for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis at high and intermediate surgical risk. The safety of the procedure continues to improve thanks to more refined procedural approaches and devices but, also and above all, to the accrual of the procedural knowledge and expertise by the operators. The diversification of the approaches and the possibility to tailor the treatment on the individual needs and anatomical features of the patients allows a rapid learning curve in the management of even complications. Indeed, there are several approaches with which TAVI can be carried out: transfemoral arterial, subclavian, transcarotid, transaortic, transaxillary, transapical, and through right anterior thoracotomy. Although transfemoral venous TAVI is less common, it has already have been carried out using caval-aortic punctures. This field is rapidly evolving, and it will be of paramount importance for interventional cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons to keep up to date with further developments. This review intends to give an in-depth and update overview of both conventional and innovative TAVI approaches, with the scope to highlight the relevant advantages, major disadvantages, safety aspects and techniques.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with a focus on transcarotid: a review of the current literature

Valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis has undergone a huge paradigm shift in the recent years in terms of procedural details and vascular access site for patients who have poor peripheral access. Carotid artery is one of the more promising access sites which has been proven to provide a good alternative site with comparable outcomes to transfemoral approach. In this manuscript, we will provide a review of the current literature on transaortic, transapical, transaxillary and transcarotid approaches to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) while focusing on the transcarotid approach.

Non-transfemoral access sites for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transfemoral access is currently the standard and preferred access site for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), though novel approaches are emerging to expand treatment options for the increasing numbers of patients with a contraindication for the traditional route. Previous publications have provided comparisons between two TAVR access sites, primarily transfemoral versus one of the novel approaches, while others have compared three or four novel approaches. The aim of this report is to provide a comprehensive summary of publications that analyse and compare the six non-transfemoral access sites currently described in the literature. These include the transapical, transaortic, axillary/subclavian, brachiocephalic, transcarotid, and transcaval approaches. Though there remains little consensus as to the superiority or non-inferiority of TAVR approaches, and there has yet to be randomized clinical trials to support published findings, with careful patient and procedural selection, outcomes for novel approaches have been reported to be comparable to standard transfemoral access when performed by skilled physicians. As such, choice of procedure is primarily based on registry data and the judgement of surgical teams as to which approach is best in each individual case. As TAVR continues to be an increasingly widespread treatment, search for the optimal access site will grow, and focus should be placed on the importance of educating surgeons as to all possible approaches so they may review and chose the most appropriate technique for a given patient.

Direct Comparison of Feasibility and Safety of Transfemoral Versus Transaortic Versus Transapical Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes among transfemoral (TF), transaortic (TAo), and transapical (TA) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

BACKGROUND

Very few studies have investigated the differences among TF, TAo, and TA TAVR in terms of safety and feasibility.

METHODS

Between January 2011 and December 2014, 467 consecutive cases of TF TAVR, 289 cases of TAo TAVR, and 42 cases of TA TAVR were analyzed. Baseline characteristics, procedural characteristics, and outcomes were compared between TF and TAo and between TAo and TA approaches.

RESULTS

Balloon-expandable prostheses were used in 320 cases of TF TAVR (69%), 209 cases of TAo TAVR (72%), and all cases of TA TAVR. The remaining cases were performed using self-expandable prostheses. Patient age and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score were similar (83.8 years vs. 83.7 years vs. 81.3 years and 6.2% vs. 5.8% vs. 7.1%) among all groups. Although nonsignificant, a trend toward lower 30-day mortality (5% vs. 9%; p = 0.057) was observed with TF TAVR compared with TAo TAVR. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a trend toward a higher 1-year survival rate (log-rank p = 0.067) with TF TAVR compared with TAo TAVR. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality between TAo and TA TAVR (9% vs. 14%; p = 0.283). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a trend toward a higher 1-year survival rate (log-rank p = 0.154) with TAo TAVR compared with TA TAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the 30-day mortality and 1-year survival rates were similar between TF and TAo TAVR patients, a trend in favor of the TF approach was observed. In addition, the TAo approach can be considered as an alternative to the TA approach when the TF approach seems unsuitable.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: current trends and future directions

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been increasingly utilized for the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis in inoperable and high surgical risk patients. Recent advances in valve technology include repositionable scaffolds and smaller delivery systems, as well as improvement in periprocedural imaging. These advances have resulted in reduction of vascular complications, rates of paravalvular aortic regurgitation and periprocedural stroke and improved overall outcomes. Increasingly, TAVI is the preferred treatment for high-risk surgical patients with severe aortic stenosis. Consequently, there is growing interest for the use of TAVI in lower surgical risk patients. Furthermore, the role of TAVI has expanded to include valve-in-valve procedures for the treatment of degenerative bioprosthetic valves and bicuspid aortic valves. Questions remain in regard to the optimal management of concurrent coronary artery disease, strategies to minimize valve leaflet restriction and treatment of conduction abnormalities as well as identifying newer indications for its use.

The Anesthetic Management of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

An increasing number of patients with a high risk for surgery because of advanced age and associated comorbidities that significantly increase the perioperative risk successfully undergo transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). TAVI is commonly performed under general or local anesthesia or local anesthesia plus mild sedation to achieve a conscious sedation. The anesthetic regimen generally depends on the patient’s clinical profile and the procedural technical characteristics, but the center’s experience and internal organization likely play an important role in anesthetic decision making. The large variation in anesthetic management among various centers and countries likely depends on the different composition of the operating team and institutional organization. Therefore, a tight interaction among the various members of the TAVI team, including the cardiac anesthetist, provides the proper anesthetic management using the chosen procedural technique.