Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement via the Transcarotid Access

Exploring Optimal Strategies for Surgical Access in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionised the management of severe aortic stenosis, particularly for patients deemed high risk or inoperable for traditional surgical aortic valve replacement. The transfemoral approach is the preferred route whenever feasible, attributed to its minimally invasive nature, reduced procedural morbidity, and shorter recovery times. In total, 80-90% of TAVI procedures are performed via the transfemoral route. However, anatomical constraints such as severe peripheral arterial disease, small vessel diameter, or significant vessel tortuosity can preclude the use of this access site. In such cases, alternative access strategies must be considered to ensure the successful implantation of the valve. This review aims to provide a comprehensive summary of the various surgical techniques available for TAVI access, exploring the rationale, technical aspects, and challenges associated with each method. We will explore alternative routes, including the transapical, transaortic, transaxillary, and transcarotid approaches, highlighting their respective benefits and limitations.

Transcarotid versus transthoracic transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transthoracic approaches may be contraindicated in some patients and may be associated with poorer outcomes. Therefore other alternative access routes are increasingly being performed. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on Transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TC-TAVR) and meta-analysis comparing outcomes of TC-TAVR and other access routes.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched for controlled randomized and non-randomized studies from 4 online databases. We presented data using risk ratios (95 % confidence intervals) and measured heterogeneity using Higgins' I2.

RESULTS

Sixteen observational studies on Transcarotid TAVR were included in the analysis; 4 studies compared 180 TC-TAVR patients vs 524 TT-TAVR patients. The mean age and STS score for patients undergoing TC-TAVR were 80 years and 7.6 respectively. For TT-TAVR patients, the mean age and STS score were 79.7 years and 8.7 respectively. TC-TAVR patients had lower 30-day MACE [7.8 % vs 13.7 %; OR 0.54 (95 % CI 0.29-0.99, P = 0.05)] and major or life-threatening bleeding [4.0 % vs 14.2 %; OR 0.25 (95 % CI 0.09-0.67, P = 0.006)]. There was no significant difference in 30-day: mortality [5.0 % vs 8.6 %; OR 0.61 (95 % CI 0.29-1.30, P = 0.20)], stroke or transient ischemic attack [2.8 % vs 4.0 %; OR 0.65 (95 % CI 0.25-1.73, P = 0.39)] and moderate or severe aortic valve regurgitation [5.0 % vs 4.6 %; OR 1.14. (95 % CI 0.52-2.52, P = 0.75)]. There was a trend towards fewer major vascular complications in TC-TAVR [3.0 % vs 7.8 %; OR 0.42 (95 % CI 0.16-1.12, P = 0.08)].

CONCLUSION

Compared with transthoracic TAVR, TC-TAVR patients had lower odds of 30-day MACE and life-threatening bleeding and no differences in 30-day mortality, stroke or TIA, aortic valve regurgitation.

Transcarotid versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In the 2021 Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) registry, 8.9 % of patients underwent TAVR via access sites other than the femoral artery. Transthoracic approaches may be contraindicated in some patients and may be associated with poorer outcomes. Therefore other alternative access routes are increasingly being performed. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TC-TAVR) and meta-analysis comparing outcomes of TC-TAVR and other access routes.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched for controlled randomized and non-randomized studies from 4 online databases. We presented data using risk ratios (95 % confidence intervals) and measured heterogeneity using Higgins' I2.

RESULTS

Sixteen observational studies on transcarotid TAVR were included in the analysis; 4 studies compared TC-TAVR vs TF-TAVR. The mean age and STS score for patients undergoing TC-TAVR were 80 years and 7.6 respectively. For TF-TAVR patients, mean age and STS score were 81.2 years and 6.5 respectively. There was no difference between patients undergoing TC-TAVR and TF-TAVR in the following 30-day outcomes: MACE [8.4 % vs 6.7 %; OR 1.32 (95 % CI 0.71-2.46 p = 0.38) I2 = 0 %], mortality [5.6 % vs 4.0 %; OR 0.42 (95 % CI 0.60-3.37, P = 0.42) I2 = 0 %] and stroke [0.7 % vs 2.3 %; OR 0.49 (95 % CI 0.09-2.56, P = 0.40) I2 = 0 %]. There was no difference in 30-day major vascular complications [0.7 % vs 3 %; OR 0.55 (95 % CI 0.06-5.29, P = 0.61) I2 = 39 %], major bleeding [0.7 % vs 3.8 %; OR 0.39 (95 % CI 0.09-1.67, P = 0.21) I2 = 0 %], and moderate or severe aortic valve regurgitation [8.6 % vs 9.9 %; OR 0.89 (95 % CI 0.48-1.65, P = 0.72) I2 = 0 %].

CONCLUSION

There are no significant differences in mortality, stroke MACE and major or life-threatening bleeding or vascular complications when TC-TAVR is compared to TF-TAVR approaches.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid vs. Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis among Patients at Low Surgical Risk in China: From the Multicenter National NTCVR Database

BACKGROUND

This study aims to compare the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with self-expandable valves for bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) vs. tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis patients who are at low surgical risk.

METHODS

Participants were enrolled from 36 centers in China between January 2017 and December 2021. The primary endpoint event was all-cause mortality and all stroke at 30 days.

RESULTS

Among 389 patients at low surgical risk that underwent TAVR, 229 patients were BAV stenosis (mean age, 72.9 years; 65.1% men). There was no significant difference in the rate of all-cause death between two populations at 30 days. However, the rate of all stroke was significantly higher in the BAV group at 30 days (3.3% vs. 0%; odds ratio (OR), 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.94 to 0.99); p = 0.044). By multivariate logistic regression analysis, trans-carotid access was associated with a higher all stroke rate at 30 days (OR, 29.20 (95% CI, 3.97 to 215.1); p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this national registry-based study, patients treated for BAV vs. TAV stenosis had no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days, but trans-carotid access was associated with a higher all stroke rate after TAVR at 30 days.

Transcarotid Versus Transaxillary/Subclavian Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR): Analysis of Outcomes

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the percutaneous management of valvular heart disease and has evolved to progressively minimalist techniques over the past decade. This review discusses the impact of minimalist TAVR, explores the alternative approaches when transfemoral (TF) TAVR is not possible, and analyzes the current outcomes of transcarotid (TC) versus transaxillary/subclavian (TAx) TAVR, which are the two leading nonfemoral (NF) approaches emerging as the preferred alternatives to TF TAVR.

Indications, contraindications, and safety aspects of procedural sedation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is a steadily increasing demand for procedural sedation outside the operating room, frequently performed in comorbid high-risk adult patients. This review evaluates the feasibility and advantages of sedation vs. general anesthesia for some of these new procedures.

RECENT FINDINGS

Generally, sedation performed by experienced staff is safe. Although for some endoscopic or transcatheter interventions sedation is feasible, results of the intervention might be improved when performed under general anesthesia. For elected procedures like intra-arterial treatment after acute ischemic stroke, avoiding general anesthesia and sedation at all might be the optimal treatment.

SUMMARY

Anesthesiologists are facing continuously new indications for procedural sedation in sometimes sophisticated diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. Timely availability of anesthesia staff will mainly influence who is performing sedation, anesthesia or nonanesthesia personal. While the number of absolute contraindications for sedation decreased to almost zero, relative contraindications are becoming more relevant and should be tailored to the individual procedure and patient.

Facilitating right-sided axillary artery access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement using the Edwards Sapien 3 and ultra valves: Technical considerations

Trans-Axillary Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) has become established as the safest arterial approach when femoral arterial anatomy is unfavorable. Although a left sided axillary approach is generally preferred, patient specific factors may require use of the right axillary artery. In this case series we describe procedural modifications that are required to overcome the challenge of restricted space in the ascending aorta for in situ valve preparation of balloon-expandable valve systems when a right sided trans-Axillary approach is taken. These steps permit implantation of both the Edwards LifeSciences Sapien 3 and Ultra prostheses via the right trans-Axillary approach, allowing patients a greater range of valve options when this arterial route is required for TAVR.

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.