Femoral Versus Nonfemoral Peripheral Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Femoral access is the gold standard for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Guidelines recommend reconsidering surgery when this access is not feasible. However, alternative peripheral accesses exist, although they have not been accurately compared with femoral access. OBJECTIVES: This study compared nonfemoral peripheral (n-FP) TAVR with femoral TAVR. METHODS: Using the data from the national prospective French registry (FRANCE TAVI [French Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation]), this study compared the characteristics and outcomes of TAVR procedures according to whether they were performed through a femoral or a n-FP access, using a pre-specified propensity score-based matching between groups. Subanalysis during 2 study periods (2013 to 2015 and 2016 to 2017) and among low/intermediate-low and intermediate-high/high volume centers were performed. RESULTS: Among 21,611 patients, 19,995 (92.5%) underwent femoral TAVR and 1,616 (7.5%) underwent n-FP TAVR (transcarotid, n = 914 or trans-subclavian, n = 702). Patients in the n-FP access group had more severe disease (mean logistic EuroSCORE 19.95 vs. 16.95; p < 0.001), with a higher rate of peripheral vascular disease, known coronary artery disease, chronic pulmonary disease, and renal failure. After matching, there was no difference in the rate of post-procedural death and complications according to access site, except for a 2-fold lower rate of major vascular complications (odds ratio: 0.45; 95% confidence interval: 0.21 to 0.93; p = 0.032) and unplanned vascular repairs (odds ratio: 0.41; 95% confidence interval: 0.29 to 0.59; p < 0.001) in those who underwent n-FP access. The comparison of outcomes provided similar results during the second study period and in intermediate-high/high volume centers. CONCLUSIONS: n-FP TAVR is associated with similar outcomes compared with femoral peripheral TAVR, except for a 2-fold lower rate of major vascular complications and unplanned vascular repairs. n-FP TAVR may be favored over surgery in patients who are deemed ineligible for femoral TAVR and may be a safe alternative when femoral access risk is considered too high.

Long-term results of carotid stenting are competitive with surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of carotid stenting (CS) is no longer questionable, although its indications remain debatable. Until the results of randomized trials are available, personal series and registries should help in the comparison of long-term results of CS with those of endarterectomy. We report here the long-term results of a large series of CS in our department with a long follow-up. This retrospective study reviews a single surgeon's 11-year experience with CS. Our results are compared with those of conventional surgery emanating from our own series and the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET), European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST), and Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: CS has been performed in our department in a single, semi-private institution for 12 years. Patients with high lesions, and postradiotherapy and postendarterectomy stenoses were treated with CS, as were patients at high risk for surgery. The others were operated on with conventional endarterectomy. During the study, we performed 221 CS procedures on 193 patients (150 men and 43 women). The average follow-up was 2.7 years (1 month to 9.3 years). We analyzed the late results in terms of prevention from stroke, the freedom from new neurologic events, and also patency rates of the treated carotid vessels. We also identified predictors for neurologic complication and in-stent restenosis by using univariate analysis. RESULTS: Life-table analyses at 10 years gave a 96% (confidence interval [CI] = 3%) rate for stroke freedom, a 98% (CI = 2%) rate for fatal stroke freedom, and a primary assisted patency rate of 95% (CI = 3%). Predictors for neurologic complication were [corrected] age >70 ( P = .041), and [corrected] potential renal insufficiency ( P = .056 [corrected] In-stent restenosis occurrence extended from 2 months to 4.5 years after the procedure. The restenosis rates at 6 months, 1, 2, and 4.5 years were, respectively, 1.4%, 2.3%, 3.7%, and 5.9% (13/221). No factors were found to be strong predictors of in-stent restenosis [corrected] CONCLUSION: These long-term results show that CS is competitive with conventional surgery. A more accurate selection for CS or surgery might reduce the rate of complications after carotid stenosis repair.

Long-term results of endovascular exclusion of extracranial internal carotid artery aneurysms and dissecting aneurysm.

OBJECTIVES: Surgery remains the standard option to treat symptomatic or complicated aneurysms of the extracranial internal carotid arteries (EICA). When located more distally to the EICA, surgery appears to be very invasive and disabling. Endovascular treatment of high aneurysmal EICA has been poorly reported. We report our experience in this particular field. METHODS: We treated five EICA endovascularly, using covered stents and stentgrafts in four patients, two males and two females. One male was treated bilaterally. The average age was 59.2 years (39-80). Three patients were symptomatic (two transient ischemic attack and one stroke). Patients were followed by duplex scan, CT scan, or angio MR. RESULTS: Protecting devices were used in two cases. No in-hospital complication was observed. During follow-up (3.6 +/- 1.3 years), no adverse event was observed and all devices remained patent at duplex scan and angiography. One early endoleak was observed and treated with covered stent extension. No sign of in-stent stenosis was observed. All the aneurysmal sacs thrombosed. CONCLUSION: Covered stents and stentgrafts allow a less invasive approach to treat highly located internal carotid aneurysms. Larger series are needed to assess the role of covered stents in treating aneurysmal EICA as first choice.