Percutaneous versus surgical transaxillary access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a propensity-matched analysis of the US experience

Right transaxillary transcatheter aortic valve replacement is comparable to left despite challenges

OBJECTIVES

Transaxillary access is the most popular alternative to transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Although left transaxillary access is generally preferred, right transaxillary transcatheter aortic valve replacement could be challenging because of the opposing axillary artery and aortic curvatures, which may warrant procedural modifications to improve alignment. Our aim is to compare our single center's outcomes for left and right transaxillary access groups and to evaluate procedural modifications for facilitating right transaxillary transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared for consecutive left or right axillary TAVRs performed from 6/2016 to 6/2022 with SAPIEN 3. The effects of our previously reported "flip-n-flex" technique on procedural efficiency and new conduction disturbances were subanalyzed in the right axillary group.

RESULTS

Right and left transaxillary transcatheter aortic valve replacement were performed in 25 (18 with the "flip-n-flex" technique) and 26 patients, respectively. There were no significant differences between patient characteristics or outcomes. Right axillary subanalysis showed the "flip-n-flex" technique group had significantly shorter fluoroscopy times (21.2 ± 6.2 vs 29.6 ± 12.4 min, p = 0.03) and a trend towards less permanent pacemaker implantation (6.3% vs. 42.9%, p = 0.07) compared to the group without "flip-n-flex".

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, despite anatomical challenges, right transaxillary transcatheter aortic valve replacement is comparable to left access. The "flip-n-flex" technique advances right transaxillary as an appealing access for patients with few options.

Intravascular Lithotripsy-Assisted Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients with Severe Iliofemoral Calcifications: Expanding Transfemoral Indications

(1) Background: Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the standard treatment for most patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Intravascular lithotripsy may facilitate transfemoral TAVI (IVL-TAVI) even in patients with severely calcified iliofemoral disease. We assessed technical aspects and clinical outcomes of this novel approach compared to alternative transaxillary access (TAX-TAVI). (2) Methods: IVL-TAVI was performed for severe iliofemoral calcifications precluding standard transfemoral access in 30 patients from 2019 to 2022 at a single academic heart center. IVL was performed as part of the TAVI procedure in all cases. Results were compared to a control group of 44 TAX-TAVI procedures performed for the same indication from 2016 to 2021. The safety outcome was a composite of all-cause death, stroke, access-related bleeding ≥ type 2 within 24 h and major vascular access site complications at 30 days. The efficacy outcome was defined as a technical success according to VARC-3. (3) Results: Median age was 78.2 [74.3, 82.6] years, 45.9% were female and mean STS-PROM was 3.6% [2.3, 6.0]. Iliofemoral calcifications were more severe in the IVL-TAVI vs. TAX-TAVI groups (lesion length: 63.0 mm [48.6, 80.3] vs. 48.5 mm [33.1, 68.8]; p = 0.043, severe calcification at target lesion: 90.0% vs. 68.2%; p = 0.047, and median arc calcification 360.0° [297.5, 360.0] vs. 360.0° [180.0, 360.0]; p = 0.033). Technical success was achieved in 93.3% vs. 81.8% (p = 0.187) in IVL- and TAX-TAVI and the safety outcome occurred in 10.0% vs. 31.8% in IVL- and TAX-TAVI (p = 0.047), respectively. (4) Conclusions: IVL-assisted transfemoral TAVI was feasible and safe with favorable outcomes compared to TAX-TAVI. IVL may further expand the number of patients eligible for transfemoral TAVI and may help overcome limitations of an alternative access.

Percutaneous transaxillary approach through the first segment of the axillary artery for the Impella-supported PCI Versus TAVR

Percutaneous transaxillary approach (PTAX) through the first segment of the axillary artery is not widely recognized as a safe method. Furthermore, PTAX has never been directly compared between Impella-supported percutaneous coronary interventions (Impella-PCI) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of PTAX through the first axillary segment in Impella-PCI versus TAVR. In cases where standard imaging guidance was insufficient, a technique involving puncturing the axillary artery "on-the-balloon" was employed. The endpoints were bleeding and vascular complications, as defined by BARC and VARC-3 criteria. PTAX was successfully performed in all 46 attempted cases: 23 for Impella-PCI and 23 for TAVR. Strict adherence to BARC and VARC-3 criteria led to the frequent identification of major bleeding (57%) and a moderately frequent diagnosis of vascular complications (17%). These incidences were primarily based on post-procedural hemoglobin reduction (> 3 g/dl) but not overt bleeding. The Impella group exhibited a higher rate of BARC 3b bleeding due to a greater hemoglobin decline resulting from the prolonged implant duration and PCI itself. Left axillary access was linked to smaller blood loss. Bleeding and vascular complications, as per BARC and VARC-3 definitions, did not affect short-term prognosis, with only 3 Impella patients succumbing to heart failure unrelated to the procedures during one-month follow-up period.

Comparison of Alternative Peripheral and Transfemoral Approaches for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis of Propensity-Matched Studies

Background. Transfemoral (TF) access is the gold standard for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Alternative peripheral (AP) artery access such as the carotid or axillary artery is considered when the feasibility of femoral access is in doubt. The outcomes comparison of these 2 approaches is unclear due to limited sample sizes in prior studies. Our aim is to compare the clinical outcomes of TF- and AP-TAVR by conducting a meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies. Methods. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from inception up to and including February 2022 were searched by 3 separate researchers to identify articles reporting propensity-matched, comparative data on TF vs. AP-TAVR. Clinical outcomes were extracted from the articles and pooled for analysis. Results. Seven prior studies, including 9,004 patients, were included in our study, with 6,729 in the TF group and 2,275 in the AP group. In all studies, the baseline characteristics of the patients were highly propensity-matched with the full Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-analysis revealed higher in-hospital/30-day mortality (3.3% vs. 4.4%; OR 0.69; 95% CI (0.51, 0.94); $P=0.02$ ) as well as the incidence of stroke (1.9% vs. 3.5%; OR 0.60; 95% CI (0.43, 0.84); $P=0.003$ ) for the AP group. There were no significant differences in the incidence of major vascular complications, pacemaker implantation, bleeding, or acute kidney injury. Conclusions. Our meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies showed AP-TAVR contains an additional 1.1% risk of early mortality and an additional 1.6% risk of stroke compared to TF-TAVR. These risks should be considered when deciding on access.