Search

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., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Introduction: Alternative transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) approaches offer the possibility of valve replacement in patients ineligible to the transfemoral route. Authors provide an updated review of the existing alternative approaches. Areas covered: A systematic review of alternative approaches for TAVI was undertaken. The feasibility, safety, efficacy, and technical requirements of the transapical, transaortic, transcarotid, transsubclavian, and transcaval approaches have been compared. A multislice computed tomography is often necessary for pre-operative planning. Although the first developed, the transapical pathway tends to be abandoned because of its high morbidity. Transaortic approach requires a mini-sternotomy or thoracotomy and general anesthesia limiting its' acceptance. Transcarotid approach requires a mini-invasive surgical cutdown but is feasible under conscious sedation. Registry data provided reassurance regarding the stroke risk with the transcarotid approach. Transsubclavian pathway is recent and feasible percutaneously although necessitates additional complex maneuvers to avoid serious bleeding complications, which extends its' learning curve. Transcaval approach is still experimental but may benefit from technological advances. Expert commentary: The choice of the alternative approach dependents on patient anatomy and comorbidities, and local operator expertise and skills. Transaortic, transcarotid and transsubclavian are nowadays used the most. However, comparative data to favor one approach over another is lacking and further research is warranted.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.