Alternative access in transcatheter aortic valve replacement—an updated focused review
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Abdelnour M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC11338806 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has surpassed surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) as the most common treatment strategy for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis over the past decade. As TAVR technology has continued to advance, it has been expanded from being an option only for extreme risk patients to now being the preferred option for the majority of patients with severe aortic stenosis. Recent trials have shown that TAVR is superior or non-inferior to SAVR even in patients at low surgical risk. One limitation of TAVR is the need for large bore vascular access. This has improved over time with smaller sheath sizes and improved delivery systems, but is still a significant issue in a patient population that often has many comorbidities including peripheral arterial disease. Early in the TAVR experience the only option for alternative access was transapical access, which has consistently been linked to increased procedural complications and worsened clinical outcomes. However, in recent years several centers have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of several alternative access strategies including transaxillary, transcarotid, transcaval, and direct aortic. There are no randomized data comparing these strategies, so access site approach is chosen by the multidisciplinary heart team based on patient anatomy and site expertise. We will review the current data in alternative access that in our view supports prioritizing a transaxillary or transcarotid strategy. In addition, we will describe our center's pre-procedural planning, peri-procedural approach, and propose an algorithm for alternative access.
| S-EPMC7044091 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) through a transfemoral (TF) and transcarotid (TC) access at our institution.MethodsFrom January 2014 to January 2020, 62 TC-TAVR and 449 TF-TAVR were performed using 2 prosthesis devices (Edwards SAPIEN 3, n = 369; Medtronic Evolut R, n = 142). Propensity score matching was used to adjust for imbalance in the baseline characteristics of the study groups.ResultsPropensity score matching provided 62 matched pairs with comparable operative risk (mean European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II, TC-TAVR 7.6% vs TF-TAVR 6.6%, P = .17). Thirty-day mortality (4.8% vs 3.2%, P = 1.00) and 2-year mortality (11.3% vs 12.9%, P = .64) after TC-TAVR were comparable with TF-TAVR. Strokes were numerically more frequent after TC-TAVR compared with TF-TAVR (3.2% vs 0%, P = .23), but the difference did not reach statistical significance. TF-TAVR was associated with a significantly greater risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (29.0% vs 12.9%, P = .04) compared with TC-TAVR. Other complications were not frequent and were similarly distributed between the matched groups.ConclusionsTC access for TAVR was associated with satisfactory results compared to the femoral access. TC-TAVR could be considered a valid and safe alternative to TF-TAVR when femoral access is contraindicated.
| S-EPMC9579710 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) is occasionally required to facilitate delivery system insertion or to treat vascular complications during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR). However, the impact of PVI on outcomes is not well understood. Therefore, we aimed to compare outcomes between TF-TAVR with versus without PVI and between TF-TAVR with PVI versus non-TF-TAVR. Methods and Results We retrospectively reviewed 2386 patients who underwent TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve at a single institution from 2016 to 2020. The primary outcomes were death and major adverse cardiac/cerebrovascular event (MACCE), defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Of 2246 TF-TAVR recipients, 136 (6.1%) required PVI (89% bailout treatment). During follow-up (median 23.0 months), there were no significant differences between TF-TAVR with and without PVI in death (15.4% versus 20.7%; adjusted HR [aHR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.58-1.58]) or MACCE (16.9% versus 23.0%; aHR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.52-1.36]). However, compared with non-TF-TAVR (n=140), TF-TAVR with PVI carried significantly lower rates of death (15.4% versus 40.7%; aHR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.24-0.75]) and MACCE (16.9% versus 45.0%; aHR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.23-0.68]). Landmark analyses demonstrated lower outcome rates following TF-TAVR with PVI than non-TF-TAVR both within 60 days (death 0.7% versus 5.7%, P=0.019; MACCE 0.7% versus 9.3%; P=0.001) and thereafter (death 15.0% versus 38.9%, P=0.014; MACCE 16.5% versus 41.3%, P=0.013). Conclusions The need for PVI during TF-TAVR is not uncommon, mainly due to the bailout treatment for vascular complications. PVI is not associated with worse outcomes in TF-TAVR recipients. Even when PVI is required, TF-TAVR is associated with better short- and intermediate-term outcomes than non-TF-TAVR.
| S-EPMC10356052 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The transfemoral (TF) route is the gold-standard access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). In 10-15% of patients, alternative accesses are needed, such as the transcarotid (TC) access. We performed a meta-analysis to compare 30-day mortality and complications between TC-TAVR and TF-TAVR. Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to January 2021 to identify articles comparing TC-TAVR and TF-TAVR. Patients' baseline characteristics, procedural outcomes, and clinical 30-day outcomes were extracted. Results: We identified 9 studies, among which 2 used propensity-score matching, including 1,374 TC patients and 3,706 TF patients. TC-TAVR was associated with significantly higher EuroSCORE II and Logistic EuroSCORE values (respectively 8.0 ± 6.7 vs. 6.3 ± 5.4, p = 0.002 and 20.8 ± 14.2% vs. 20.0 ± 13.4%, p = 0.04), a higher prevalence of peripheral artery disease (52.6 vs. 32.8%, p = 0.001), previous cardiac surgery (26.3 vs. 22.4%, p = 0.008) and coronary artery disease (64.6 vs. 60.5%, p = 0.020). The pooled results found TC-TAVR to be associated with a significantly higher 30-day mortality risk (RR, 1.41, 95% CI, 1.02-1.96, p = 0.040), and a lower rate of 30-day major vascular complications (RR, 0.48, 95% CI, 0.25-0.92, p = 0.030). No significant difference was found regarding permanent pacemaker implantation, major bleeding and acute kidney injury. A subgroup analysis of the two propensity-score matched studies found a statistically increased risk of 30-day neurovascular complications (RR, 1.61, 95% CI, 1.02-2.55, p = 0.040). Conclusion: Compared with TF-TAVR, TC-TAVR was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality, likely related to a higher surgical risk and comorbidity burden, and with an increased risk of 30-day neurovascular complications. Careful preprocedural patient selection and close periprocedural neurological monitoring are paramount.
| S-EPMC8190826 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7451866 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt is unknown whether there are differences in coronary access after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) between bicuspid and tricuspid anatomy.AimsOur aim was to investigate coronary access after TAVR using a self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) in bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves (BAV vs TAV), based on CT simulation.MethodsA total of 86 type 0 BAV, 70 type 1 BAV, and 132 TAV patients were included. If the coronary ostium faced the sealed parts of the THV or the tilted-up native leaflet (NL), this was defined as THV- or NL-related challenging coronary access, respectively. If coaxial engagement was not allowed due to interference from the unwrapped frame, THV-related complex coronary access was defined.ResultsThe incidence of THV-related challenging coronary access was 21.2% for the left coronary artery (LCA) and 17.7% for the right coronary artery (RCA), and type 0 BAV patients encountered fewer THV-related challenging LCA access than their TAV counterparts (OR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.89). NL-related challenging coronary access was observed in 3.1% for LCA and 1.4% for RCA, and THV-related complex coronary access was identified in 5.9% for LCA and 17.0% for RCA; however, no significant differences were found among groups. The proportion of optimal fluoroscopic viewing angles suitable for guiding LCA engagement was similar among groups (64.0% vs 70.0% vs 62.1%), but those suitable for guiding RCA engagement were significantly higher in the type 0 BAV group (31.4% vs 4.3% vs 9.1%).ConclusionsCoronary access may be challenging or complex in a significant proportion of both BAV and TAV patients after TAVR. Type 0 BAV anatomy may be more favourable for post-TAVR coronary access.
| S-EPMC9912966 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: The use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis is expanding significantly. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of TAVI versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) during the early and mid-term follow-up period. (2) Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 1- to 2-year outcomes between TAVI and SAVR. The study protocol was preregistered in PROSPERO and the results were reported according to PRISMA guidelines. (3) Results: The pooled analysis included data from eight RCTs totaling 8780 patients. TAVI was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke (OR 0.87, 95%CI 0.77-0.99), significant bleeding (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.25-0.59), acute kidney injury (AKI; OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.40-0.69) and atrial fibrillation (OR 0.28, 95%CI 0.19-0.43). SAVR was associated with a lower risk of major vascular complication (MVC; OR 1.99, 95%CI 1.29-3.07) as well as permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI; OR 2.28, 95%CI 1.45-3.57). (3) Conclusions: TAVI compared with SAVR during early and mid-term follow-up was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, significant bleeding, AKI and atrial fibrillation; however, it was associated with a higher risk of MVC and PPI.
| S-EPMC10146134 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). Coronary artery disease (CAD) is common in patients with severe AS. As the indications for TAVR extend to lower risk patients with longer life expectancy and as CAD is a progressive condition, coronary angiography will become increasingly common in patients who have had a previous TAVR. Coronary artery re-access after TAVR may be challenging but is possible in most cases. Commissural alignment of the prosthesis with the native coronary ostia plays an important role in successful coronary re-access. Coronary artery obstruction is a potentially devastating complication of TAVR, particularly in valve-in-valve procedures. In the present keynote lecture, we review techniques used to mitigate the risk of coronary obstruction, as well as catheter selection and strategies for selective coronary artery engagement for specific transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) bioprostheses.
| S-EPMC7724072 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: A small proportion of patients in need of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are not suitable for the transfemoral approach due to peripheral artery disease. Alternative TAVR approaches are associated with short- and long-term hazards. A novel technique of caval-aortic (transcaval) access for TAVR has been utilized as an alternative access technique. Aim: To compare safety and efficacy of transcaval access as compared to other alternative access (axillary or apical) for TAVR. Methods: A single-center, retrospective analysis of consecutive patients undergoing alternative access for TAVR. Events were adjudicated according to VARC-2 criteria. Results: A total of 185 patients were included in the present analysis. Mean age was 81 years with a small majority for male gender (54%). Of the entire cohort, 20 patients (12%) underwent transcaval TAVR, and 165 patients (82%) underwent TAVR using alternative access. Overall, baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. General anesthesia was not utilized in transcaval patients; however, it was routinely used in nearly all alternative access patients. TAVR device success was comparable between the two groups (95%). Acute kidney injury occurred significantly less frequently among transcaval patients as compared to alternative access patients (5 vs. 12%, p = 0.05). Hospital stay was shorter for transcaval patients (6.3 days vs. 14.4; p < 0.001). No difference in early or 30-day mortality (10 vs. 7.9%, p = 0.74) was noted between groups. Conclusions: In patients who cannot undergo TAVR via the trans-femoral approach due to peripheral vascular disease, transcaval access is a safe approach as compared to other alternative access techniques, with lower risk of kidney injury and shorter hospital stay.
| S-EPMC8492973 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular heart disease in the developed world. About 7% of the population over age 65 years suffers from degenerative aortic stenosis. The prognosis of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis is dismal without valve replacement. Even though the American College of Cardiology recommends aortic valve replacement to treat this condition as a class I recommendation, approximately one third of these patients over the age of 75 years are not referred for surgery. Typically, this is from concern about prohibitive surgical risk associated with patient frailty, comorbidities, age, and severe left ventricular dysfunction. The advent in France of transcatheter aortic valve replacement has raised the hope in the United States for an alternative, less invasive treatment for aortic stenosis. Two recent trials-the Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial Edwards SAPIEN Transcatheter Heart Valve (Partner) and the CoreValve US Pivotal-have established transcatheter aortic valve replacement as the preferred approach in patients who are at high or prohibitive surgical risk. The more recently published Partner 2 trial has shown the feasibility of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in intermediate-surgical-risk patients as well. With a profile that promises easier use and better valve performance and delivery, newer-generation valves have shown their potential for further improvement in safety profile and overall outcomes. We review the history and status of this topic.
| S-EPMC5317356 | biostudies-literature