Percutaneous access and closure using the MANTA vascular closure device in transaxillary transcatheter aortic valve implantation

'Post-Close' Femoral Arterial Haemostasis at Endovascular Aneurysm Repair using a Dedicated Large-Bore Vascular Closure Device: A Prospective Real-World Audit

PURPOSE

Percutaneous access for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is commonplace, with its attendant benefits. The combination of continued reduction in device profile and evolution of vascular closure device (VCD) design drives successful and safe percutaneous EVAR. A new such VCD is the MANTA Large-Bore Closure Device designed in two iterations for closure of arterial defects from 10 to 25F. We present a prospective audit of 131 large-bore femoral closures using an 'all-comers' approach to device selection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and thirty-one large-bore femoral arterial defects were analysed. Both 14F and 18F MANTA VCDs were deployed in this series as per instructions for use. Primary objectives were technical success, particularly successful deployment, and haemostasis achieved. Failures were denoted as failure to deploy; failure to achieve haemostasis was denoted as active bleeding, haematoma, or pseudoaneurysm formation requiring intervention. Later complications assessed were vessel occlusion/thrombosis or stenosis.

RESULTS

Seventy-six patients (65 males and 11 females, age 75.2 ± 8.7 years) underwent a range of procedures including EVAR (n = 66), TEVAR (n = 2), and reinterventions (n = 8) requiring large-bore percutaneous femoral arterial access in 131 groins. Of these, the 14F MANTA VCD was used in 61 closures (defects ranging from 12 to 18F) and the 18F in 70 closures (defects ranging from 16 to 24F). Deployments achieved successful haemostasis in 120 (91.6%), and failures occurred in 11(8.4%) groins.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that a post-close approach using the novel MANTA Large-Bore Closure Device can be undertaken successfully to close a range of large-bore femoral arterial defects at EVAR/TEVAR with an acceptable rate of complications.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: All Transfemoral? Update on Peripheral Vascular Access and Closure

Transfemoral access remains the most widely used peripheral vascular approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Despite technical improvement and reduction in delivery sheath diameters of all TAVI platforms, 10-20% of patients remain not eligible to transfemoral TAVI due to peripheral artery disease. In this review, we aim at presenting an update of recent data concerning transfemoral access and percutaneous closure devices. Moreover, we will review peripheral non-transfemoral alternative as well as caval-aortic accesses and discuss the important features to assess with pre-procedural imaging modalities before TAVI.

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.

Femoral Versus Nonfemoral Subclavian/Carotid Arterial Access Route for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Some concerns remain regarding the safety of transcarotid and transsubclavian approaches for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. We aimed to compare the risk of 30‐day complications and death in transcarotid/transsubclavian versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement recipients.

Methods and Results

Data from 20 studies, including 79 426 patients (16 studies) and 3992 patients (4 studies) for the evaluation of the unadjusted and adjusted impact of the arterial approach were sourced, respectively. The use of a transcarotid/transsubclavian approach was associated with an increased risk of stroke when using unadjusted data (risk ratio [RR], 2.28; 95% CI, 1.90–2.72) as well as adjusted data (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.05–2.22). The pooled results deriving from unadjusted data showed an increased risk of 30‐day death (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.22–1.74) and bleeding (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.18–1.97) in patients receiving transcatheter aortic valve replacement through a transcarotid/transsubclavian access (compared with the transfemoral group), but the associations between the arterial access and death (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.89–1.69), bleeding (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.68–1.61) were no longer significant when using adjusted data. No significant effect of the arterial access on vascular complication was observed in unadjusted (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66–1.06) and adjusted (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.53–1.17) analyses.

Conclusions

Transcarotid and transsubclavian approaches for transcatheter aortic valve replacement were associated with an increased risk of stroke compared with the transfemoral approach. However, these nonfemoral arterial alternative accesses were not associated with an increased risk of 30‐day death, bleeding, or vascular complication when taking into account the confounding factors.