Peripheral intravascular lithotripsy for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a multicentre observational study

Intravascular Lithotripsy and Aortic Bare-Metal Stenting: A Low-Profile Solution for the Treatment of Heavily Calcified Aorto-Iliac Disease

PURPOSE

To present a novel technique for the treatment of heavily calcified aorto-iliac disease using intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) and self-expanding bare-metal stents (BMS).

TECHNIQUE

We present our experience with 4 cases of calcified aorto-iliac disease that were treated with IVL as vessel preparation followed by BMS deployment. Intravascular lithotripsy was performed using a 7-mm or 8-mm Shockwave catheter from 1 access and a non-compliant balloon introduced from the second access in a "hugging-balloon" configuration. Afterward, a self-expandable BMS is deployed in the infrarenal aorta and additional bare-metal balloon-mounted stents are deployed in the iliac arteries as needed. This technique provides a low-profile solution with only 6- and 7-French introducers, preservation of the collateral circulation while also preserving the option for an up-and-over approach in the future. Technical success was achieved in all cases and no periprocedural complications were observed.

CONCLUSION

Intravascular lithotripsy in combination with BMS for the infrarenal aorta and the aortic bifurcation seems to be a safe and effective low-profile treatment option for heavily calcified lesions. Large-scale studies with long-term follow-up are needed to validate our positive early results.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Endovascular treatment of heavily calcified aortoiliac disease poses significant challenges, including the risk of rupture and dissection. The proposed technique uses intravascular lithotripsy and bare-metal stenting of the aortic bifurcation and represents a low-profile solution that preserves collaterals and potentially reduces the risk of dissection with IVL vessel preparation.

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.

Alternative access in transcatheter aortic valve replacement-an updated focused review

Aortic Stenosis (AS) is a common condition with an estimated pooled prevalence of all AS in the elderly population at around 12.4%, with that of severe AS estimated to be around 3.4%. In the past, surgical aortic valve replacement was the primary treatment option for severe AS for decades. However, with the compelling evidence on the safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), it has become the gold standard treatment option for many patients with symptomatic severe AS. Transfemoral access has been the preferred method for transcatheter heart valve delivery. However, the prevalent use of TAVR on a diverse patient profile with different risk factors, such as peripheral artery disease, precluded the possibility of a transfemoral approach despite the improvement of valves and delivery systems technology. Therefore, alternative TAVR approaches have gained increasing utility in cases where transfemoral access is unfavorable. We review the journey, evolution, and techniques for different approaches of percutaneous TAVR, including transfemoral, transcarotid, transsubclavian/transaxillary, and transcaval approaches, in addition to the traditional "surgical" transaortic and transapical accesses. Consolidating these data highlights each approach's practicality and limitations, providing additional grounding for case-by-case utilization and future clinical research.

Peripheral intravascular lithotripsy to facilitate transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement - Defining optimal treatable peripheral arterial disease burden

BACKGROUND

Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) has proven superior to alternative access. However, some patients evaluated for TF-TAVR are unfit secondary to peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Peripheral intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) can facilitate femoral access. This study aimed to characterize optimal lesions that can be treated with IVL.

METHODS

Single-center, retrospective analysis of an institutional database, queried from 1/2018 through 7/2023 for all patients who underwent TAVR. Patients who received IVL-facilitated transfemoral access were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 2862 TAVR cases identified, 92 (3.2 %) underwent lithotripsy. The IVL-facilitated cohort had a mean age of 78 ± 9.2 years and 45 % were female. The right common iliac artery was most treated (47). Most IVL was performed with 7-mm balloons (73.9 %). All cases were successful. 30-day mortality was 1.1 % (1/92).

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort, complications after IVL-facilitated TF-TAVR were more common with small vessel diameter (≤4.7 mm), significant luminal loss (>50 % stenosis), and heavy calcium burden (arc calcification >180°). The findings support the use of IVL to expand the population of patients who can undergo TF-TAVR without the increased risks associated with the various forms of alternative access.

SUMMARY FOR ANNOTATED TABLE OF CONTENTS

IVL-facilitated TF-TAVR is safe and feasible. Despite its introduction to TAVR clinical practice in 2018, IVL-facilitated TF-TAVR is not regularly performed and could increase the population of patients eligible for TF-TAVR.

Intravascular lithotripsy in peripheral lesions with severe calcification and its use in TAVI procedure - a meta-analysis

Background: Heavily calcified peripheral artery lesions increase the risk of vascular complications, constituting a severe challenge for the operator during catheter-based cardiovascular interventions. Intravascular Lithotripsy (IVL) technology disrupts subendothelial calcification by using localized pulsative sonic pressure waves and represents a promising technique for plaque modification in patients with severe calcification in peripheral arteries. Purpose: Our aim was to systematically review and summarize available data regarding the safety and efficacy of IVL in preparing severely calcified peripheral arteries and its use in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI). Patients and methods: This study was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. We systematically searched PubMed, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases from their inception to February 23, 2023, for studies assessing the characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing IVL in the peripheral vasculature. The diameter of the vessel lumen before and after IVL was estimated. The occurrence of peri-procedural complications was assessed using a random-effects model. Results: 20 studies with a total of 1,223 patients with heavily calcified peripheral lesions were analysed. The mean age of the cohort was 70.6 ± 17.4 years. Successful IVL delivery achieved in 100% (95% CI: 100%-100%, I2 = 0%), with an increase in the luminal diameter (SMD: 4.66, 95% CI: 3.41-5.92, I2 = 90.8%) and reduction in diameter stenosis (SMD: -4.15, 95% CI: -4.75 to -3.55, I2 = 92.8%), and a concomitant low rate of complications. The procedure was free from dissection in 97% (95% CI: 91%-100%, I2 = 81.4%) while dissections of any type (A, B, C, or D) were observed in 6% (95% CI: 2%-10%, I2 = 85.3%) of the patients. Several rare cases of abrupt closure, no-reflow phenomenon, perforation, thrombus formation, and distal embolization were recorded. Finally, the subgroup analysis of patients who underwent a TAVI with IVL assistance presented successful implantation in 100% (95% CI: 100%-100%, I2 = 0%) of the cases, with only 4% (95% CI: 0%-12%, I2 = 68.96%) presenting dissections of any sort. Conclusions: IVL seems to be an effective and safe technique for modifying severely calcified lesions in peripheral arteries and it is a promising modality in TAVI settings. Future prospective studies are needed to validate our results.

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.

Intravascular Iliac Artery Lithotripsy to Facilitate Aortic Endograft Delivery: Midterm Results of a Dual-Center Experience

PURPOSE

To assess the feasibility and safety of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) for enabling transfemoral abdominal (EVAR), thoracic (TEVAR), and thoracoabdominal (BEVAR) endovascular aneurysm repair in patients with narrow and calcified iliac arteries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients treated with IVL for severe calcified and narrowed iliac access before EVAR, TEVAR, or BEVAR between November 2020 and June 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. All anatomical iliac characteristics were acquired by multi-planar reconstruction of preoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA). The hostility of the vascular accesses was classified based on Peripheral Arterial Calcium Scoring System (PACSS) and calcified access severity score (CASS), a new score considering both anatomical (calcium grade and length, minimum lumen diameter [MLD], and tortuosity index) and aortic stent-graft (SG/MLD index) parameters. Primary endpoint was technical success defined as successful aortic endograft delivery and deployment without iliac rupture. Freedom from complications and primary patency were additionally analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight iliac axes were treated with IVL (8 bilateral) in 20 patients (mean age 74.5±6.7 years) with a mean follow-up of 26.5±6.2 (range 17-36) months. Ten patients underwent EVAR: 3 TEVAR, and 7 BEVAR procedures. In 14 patients (70%), aneurysm disease was associated with symptomatic aorto-iliac occlusive disease (AIOD), with Rutherford class III to IV. The PACSS was grade IV in 89% of the cases and the CASS (mean 14±2) was grade III to IV in all cases. The stent-graft (SG) outer diameter (5.60±1.65 mm) was significantly larger by 50% than MLD (3.96±1.20 mm), with an SG/MLD index of 1.50±0.51 (p<0.001). Technical success was 100%. No dissection, rupture, or distal embolization occurred. One (3.4%) bail-out stenting was necessary as endoconduit after IVL treatment. One month CTA showed that postoperative luminal gain increased by 93% (p<0.001). An improvement of 2 Rutherford classes occurred in all AIOD patients with a primary patency of 100% at last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows the safety and feasibility of IVL as a valuable option to treat narrow and calcified iliac arteries to facilitate endograft delivery. Further studies will be useful to confirm these results.

CLINICAL IMPACT

In this article, the use of intravascular iliac artery lithotripsy to facilitate aortic endograft delivery is explored. The presence of iliac severe calcifications still represents a contraindication for aortic endovascular repair. Intravascular lithotripsy increases the feasibility and safety of endovascular aortic procedures, facilitating endograft delivery and reducing the risk of iliac rupture and/or dissections by improving vessel compliance and luminal gain. This novel vessel preparation could be an alternative to "paving and cracking" and/or iliac conduits. This study describes a new score to classify the severity of iliac calcifications, considering anatomical parameters and the profile of aortic endografts delivery system.

Protagoras 3.0: feasibility of current fenestrated endografts and chimney technique for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the anatomical feasibility of current available fenestrated endografts (FEVAR) and on-label chimney technique (EnChEVAR) in patients with complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (C-AAA).

METHODS

Feasibility of EnChEVAR (Endurant II/IIS CE-marked [Medtronic]) and 4 types of FEVAR (Zenith Fenestrated CE-marked, Zenith Fenestrated Low-Profile [LP] custom-made device [CMD] [Cook Medical], Fenestrated Anaconda LoPro90 CMD, Fenestrated Treo CMD [Terumo Aortic]) was assessed according to the manufacturer's instructions for use. Computed tomography angiograms of patients with C-AAA previously included in the Protagoras 2.0 study were retrospectively reviewed. The aortic coverage was ideally planned to involve a maximum of two chimney grafts or fenestrations.

RESULTS

Iliac access and aortic neck of 73 C-AAAs were analyzed. The overall feasibility was significantly different between EnChEVAR (33%) and FEVAR (Zenith Fenestrated 15%, Zenith Fenestrated LP 15%, Fenestrated Anaconda LoPro90 45%, Fenestrated Treo 48%). The iliac access feasibility was significantly lower for Zenith Fenestrated with standard profile compared to all other grafts. The aortic neck feasibility was significantly higher for EnChEVAR and both Terumo Aortic fenestrated stent grafts, compared to both Cook Medical grafts. The treatment using any of the three current available fenestrated grafts with lower profile (Zenith Fenestrated LP, Fenestrated Anaconda LoPro90, Fenestrated Treo) would have been feasible in 71% of the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the patients treated by ChEVAR would have not been treated by first generation fenestrated stent graft. The current available fenestrated endografts, with lower profile and suitable also for angulated necks, increase the anatomical feasibility.

The role of the vascular surgeon in transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the standard treatment for severe aortic valve stenosis in patients at increased surgical risk. Percutaneous transfemoral (TF) is the access of choice due to its reduced invasiveness and perioperative morbidity/mortality compared with the trans-axillary, aortic, and apical routes. On the other hand, vascular access complications (VACs) of the TF access are associated with prolonged hospitalization, 30-day, and 1-year mortality. In addition, the concomitance of peripheral arterial disease may require associated endovascular management. A multidisciplinary team with Interventional Cardiologists and Vascular Surgeons may minimize the rate of VACs in patients with challenging femoral-iliac access or concomitant disease of other vascular districts, thus optimizing the outcome of TF-TAVI. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of Vascular Surgeons in TF TAVI procedures.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective single-center review of all TF-TAVI procedures assisted by Vascular Surgeons between January 2016 and December 2020 in a high-volume tertiary hospital. Pre, intra, and postoperative data were analyzed by a dedicated group of Interventional Cardiologists and Vascular Surgeons. VACs were defined according with the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) three guidelines. The outcomes of TF-TAVI procedures with Vascular Surgeons involvement were assessed as study's endpoints.

RESULTS

Overall, 937 TAVI procedures were performed with a TF approach ranging between 78% (2016) and 98% (2020). Vascular Surgeons were involved in 67 (7%) procedures with the following indications: concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR + TAVI) - 3 (4%), carotid stenosis (TAVI + CAS) - 2 (3%), hostile femoral/iliac access, or VACs - 62 (93%). Balloon angioplasty of iliac artery pre-TAVI implantation was performed in 51 cases (conventional PTA: 38/51%-75%; conventional PTA + intravascular lithotripsy: 13/51%-25%; stenting: 5/51%-10%). TAVI procedure was successfully completed by percutaneous TF approach in all 62 cases with challenging femoral/iliac access. VACs necessitating interventions were 18/937 (2%) cases, localized to the common femoral or common/external iliac artery in 15/18 (83%) and 3/18 (17%) cases, respectively. They were managed by surgical or endovascular maneuvers in 3/18 (17%) and 15/18 (83%) cases, respectively. Fifteen/18 (83%) VACs were treated during the index procedure. There was no procedure-related mortality or 30-day readmission.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, Vascular Surgeon assistance in TAVI procedures was not infrequent and allowed safe and effective device introduction through challenging TF access. Similarly, the concomitant significant disease of other vascular districts could be safely addressed, potentially reducing postoperative related mortality and morbidity. The implementation of multidisciplinary team with interventional cardiologists and vascular surgeons should be encouraged whenever possible.

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.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: From Pre-Procedural Planning to Procedural Scenarios and Possible Complications

Over the last decades, bioprosthetic heart valves (BHV) have been increasingly implanted instead of mechanical valves in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Structural valve deterioration (SVD) is a common issue at follow-up and can justify the need for a reintervention. In the evolving landscape of interventional cardiology, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) has emerged as a remarkable innovation to address the complex challenges of patients previously treated with SAVR and has rapidly gained prominence as a feasible technique especially in patients at high surgical risk. On the other hand, the expanding indications for TAVR in progressively younger patients with severe aortic stenosis pose the crucial question on the long-term durability of transcatheter heart valves (THVs), as patients might outlive the bioprosthetic valve. In this review, we provide an overview on the role of ViV TAVR for failed surgical and transcatheter BHVs, with a specific focus on current clinical evidence, pre-procedural planning, procedural techniques, and possible complications. The combination of integrated Heart Team discussion with interventional growth curve makes it possible to achieve best ViV TAVR results and avoid complications or put oneself ahead of time from them.

Transfemoral versus trans-subclavian access in transcatheter aortic valve implantation using self-expandable valve: A propensity-matched comparison

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is unfeasible for 10-15% of patients using the conventional transfemoral approach. Other alternative approaches, such as the subclavian approach, have emerged, with no clear recommendation indicating the superiority of one technique over another.

AIM

To compare the 1-month mortality and postprocedural outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation using a self-expandable valve via transfemoral and subclavian access.

METHODS

This was a retrospective single-centre study including 1496 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation between January 2016 and December 2020 at Clermont-Ferrand University Hospital, France. Propensity score matching was used to compare transfemoral and subclavian access.

RESULTS

After building two propensity score-matched groups of 221 patients each with either access route (total n=442), baseline characteristics were similar. The procedure duration was significantly longer in the subclavian access group (53 [45-64] versus 60 [51-72] minutes; P<0.001), but with a lower amount of contrast agent (138 [118-165] versus 123 [105-150] mL; P<0.001), fluoroscopy time (11.2 [9-14] versus 9.9 [7-12] minutes; P<0.001) and radiation dose (397 [264-620] versus 321 [217-485] mGy; P<0.001). No significant difference was observed concerning 1-month mortality (odds ratio 1.62, 95% confidence interval 0.52-5.03; P=0.39) or periprocedural complications. Follow-up at 1 year confirmed no difference in longer-term mortality (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.52-5.03; P=0.43).

CONCLUSIONS

The subclavian approach provides similar results to the transfemoral approach in terms of mortality, efficacy and safety; it is a reasonable and effective alternative when the reference transfemoral approach is impossible or seems complex.

Shockwave Lithotripsy of Calcific Stenosis of the Distal Abdominal Aorta to Facilitate Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

The transfemoral approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is superior to alternative access strategies. Only transfemoral access has been shown to have better clinical outcomes than surgical aortic valve replacement. In our patient, severe calcification of the distal abdominal aorta posed difficulty in using transfemoral access for TAVR. We applied intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) to the distal abdominal aorta to achieve necessary luminal gain facilitating bioprosthetic aortic valve deployment.

[Endovascular Therapy for Peripheral Artery Disease - Therapeutic Options for Treatment of Severe Calcification]

Calcified lesions are a major limitation of endovascular therapy of peripheral artery disease. Recently published studies evaluating the impact of lithotripsy (Disrupt III) and directional atherectomy (REALITY) as vessel preparation devices for calcified femoro-popliteal lesions prior to the final treatment with drug-coated balloons (DCB). Disrupt III, a randomized controlled trial comparing lithotripsy and regular balloon angioplasty for vessel preparation prior to DCB, and REALITY, a single-arm study of directional atherectomy prior to DCB angioplasty resulted in low provisional stent and dissection rates. Moreover, lithotripsy did result in a better 2-year patency rate as compared to predilatation with a regular balloon. Importantly, both vessel preparation strategies resulted in a low rate of post-procedural residual stenosis of >30%, the major predictor for loss of patency following DCB angioplasty in long-term.Lithotripsy is an emerging therapy concept for vessel preparation of calcified pelvic arteries prior to trans-femoral aortic valve implantation.In summary, vessel preparation of calcified arterial lesions by improving vessel compliance or reducing the plaque load represent promising technical methods reducing provisional stent rates and improving longer-term outcomes.

Impact of periprocedural bleeding on mid-term outcome in nonagenarians who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation: insights from LAPLACE registry

Data from several recent studies have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe aortic stenosis (AS) even in nonagenarians. However, the impact of periprocedural bleeding following TAVI on their outcome remains unclear. In the aLliAnce for exPloring cLinical prospects of AortiC valvE disease (LAPLACE) registry, we compared outcomes between the bleeding and no-bleeding groups among 1953 patients < 90 years old (mean age, 83.0 ± 4.6 years old) and 316 nonagenarians (mean age, 91.7 ± 1.9 years old) who underwent TAVI with a median follow-up period of 628 days. The group with any periprocedural bleeding showed a higher 30-day mortality than the no-bleeding group in patients < 90 years old (3.3% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.001) and nonagenarians (7.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.001). In patients < 90 years old, severe periprocedural bleeding (n = 85) was associated with a higher mid-term all-cause mortality rate than no severe bleeding (n = 1,868), even after adjusting for covariates (hazard ratio [HR], 1.994; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.287-2.937; p = 0.002). On the other hand, in nonagenarians, any periprocedural bleeding (n = 38) was associated with a higher mid-term cardiovascular (CV) mortality rate (21.1% vs. 4.3%, log-rank p = 0.014) than no bleeding (n = 278), even after adjusting for covariates (HR, 3.104; 95% CI 1.140-8.449; p = 0.027). In conclusion, any periprocedural bleeding after TAVI was associated with mid-term CV mortality in nonagenarians, whereas severe bleeding was associated with mid-term all-cause mortality in patients < 90 years old.

Vascular Access in Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease Undergoing TAVR: The Hostile Registry

BACKGROUND

The optimal access route in patients with severe peripheral artery disease (PAD) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains undetermined.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare clinical outcomes with transfemoral access (TFA), transthoracic access (TTA), and nonthoracic transalternative access (TAA) in TAVR patients with severe PAD.

METHODS

Patients with PAD and hostile femoral access (TFA impossible, or possible only after percutaneous treatment) undergoing TAVR at 28 international centers were included in this registry. The primary endpoint was the propensity-adjusted risk of 30-day major adverse events (MAE) defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), or main access site-related Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 major vascular complications. Outcomes were also stratified according to the severity of PAD using a novel risk score (Hostile score).

RESULTS

Among the 1,707 patients included in the registry, 518 (30.3%) underwent TAVR with TFA after percutaneous treatment, 642 (37.6%) with TTA, and 547 (32.0%) with TAA (mostly transaxillary). Compared with TTA, both TFA (adjusted HR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.45-0.75) and TAA (adjusted HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.47-0.78) were associated with lower 30-day rates of MAE, driven by fewer access site-related complications. Composite risks at 1 year were also lower with TFA and TAA compared with TTA. TFA compared with TAA was associated with lower 1-year risk of stroke/TIA (adjusted HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.24-0.98), a finding confined to patients with low Hostile scores (P_interaction = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with PAD undergoing TAVR, both TFA and TAA were associated with lower 30-day and 1-year rates of MAE compared with TTA, but 1-year stroke/TIA rates were higher with TAA compared with TFA.

New Practices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: How I Do It in 2023

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) went through a huge evolution in the last decades. Previously performed under general anesthesia, with transoperative transesophageal echocardiography guidance and using cutdown femoral artery access, the procedure has now evolved into a minimalist approach, with local anesthesia, conscious sedation, and the avoidance of invasive lines becoming the new standards. Here, we discuss the minimalist TAVI approach and how we incorporate it into our current clinical practice.

Trends and Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease: Insights From the National Readmissions Database

Due to shared risk factors, many patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) also have concomitant peripheral arterial disease (PAD). The readmission rates and long term clinical outcomes of these patients following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in a large sample has not been well defined. The National Readmissions Database (NRD) (2015-2019) was used to identify patients undergoing TAVI. TAVI in patients with PAD was compared with those without PAD using a propensity score matched (PSM) analysis to obtain adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of net adverse clinical events (NACE), and its components. A total of 189,216 patients were identified, of which 14,925 patients (7386 with PAD, 7539 without PAD) were selected for adjusted analysis. Using PSM, patients with PAD undergoing TAVI had significantly higher in-hospital adjusted odds of NACE (aOR 1.60, 95% CI 1.36-1.88), and mortality (aOR 4.10, 95% CI 2.88-5.83). However, rates of other in-hospital peri procedural complications (stroke, major bleeding, paravalvular leak, cardiogenic shock) were not significantly different. There was no significant difference in the incidence of NACE, mortality, or other complications between the 2 groups at 30- and 180 days follow-up. Patients with PAD undergoing TAVI have an increased risk of mortality and NACE during the periprocedural period. However, following discharge, there was no statistically significant difference in 30 days and 6 month outcomes of TAVI in this population compared to those without significant PAD.

Advances in technology and techniques for transcatheter aortic valve replacement with concomitant peripheral arterial disease

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a prevalent disease affecting 3.7% of the adult population aged 65 or above. In the past, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was the only definitive therapy available for the treatment of severe AS. Owing to the invasive nature of open-heart surgery, patients with advanced age and frailty could not benefit from SAVR. The advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the past decade has offered an alternative treatment option for patients with severe AS, particularly those who are deemed to have high surgical risks. Nevertheless, a large proportion of patients also have concomitant peripheral arterial disease (PAD), which increases the risk of peri-procedural vascular complication, and precludes the possibility of transfemoral TAVR owing to inadequate luminal size for delivery system deployment. In this review, the prevalence and outcome of TAVR patients with PAD will be discussed. Furthermore, novel technologies and techniques that enable TAVR to be safely performed using transfemoral or alternative access in patients with severe PAD will be reviewed.

Strategies for Facilitating Totally Percutaneous Transfemoral TAVR Procedures

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has transformed the treatment of aortic stenosis and should ideally be performed as a totally percutaneous procedure via the transfemoral (TF) approach. Peripheral vascular disease may impede valve delivery, and vascular access site complications are associated with adverse clinical outcome and increased mortality. We review strategies aimed to facilitate TF valve delivery in patients with hostile vascular anatomy and achieve percutaneous management of vascular complications.