Early clinical outcomes after transaxillary versus transfemoral TAVI. Data from the Spanish TAVI registry.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Transaxillary access (TXA) has become the most widely used alternative to transfemoral access (TFA) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this study was to compare total in-hospital and 30-day mortality in patients included in the Spanish TAVI registry who were treated by TXA or TFA access. METHODS: We analyzed data from patients treated with TXA or TFA and who were included in the TAVI Spanish registry. In-hospital and 30-day events were defined according to the recommendations of the Valve Academic Research Consortium. The impact of the access route was evaluated by propensity score matching according to clinical and echocardiogram characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 6603 patients were included; 191 (2.9%) were treated via TXA and 6412 via TFA access. After adjustment (n=113 TXA group and n=3035 TFA group) device success was similar between the 2 groups (94%, TXA vs 95%, TFA; P=.95). However, compared with the TFA group, the TXA group showed a higher rate of acute myocardial infarction (OR, 5.3; 95%CI, 2.0-13.8); P=.001), renal complications (OR, 2.3; 95%CI, 1.3-4.1; P=.003), and pacemaker implantation (OR, 1.6; 95%CI, 1.01-2.6; P=.03). The TXA group also had higher in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates (OR, 2.2; 95%CI, 1.04-4.6; P=.039 and OR, 2.3; 95%CI, 1.2-4.5; P=.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ATF, TXA is associated with higher total mortality, both in-hospital and at 30 days. Given these results, we believe that TXA should be considered only in those patients who are not suitable candidates for TFA.

Outcomes and predictors of success and complications for paravalvular leak closure: an analysis of the SpanisH real-wOrld paravalvular LEaks closure (HOLE) registry.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to assess the safety and efficacy of percutaneous closure of paravalvular prosthetic leak (PVL) and to identify the predictors of procedural success and early complications. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 514 first-attempt percutaneous PVL closure in 469 patients were included at 19 centres. Technical and procedural success was achieved in 86.6% and 73.2% of the patients, respectively. In multivariate analysis, the independent predictors for procedural success in mitral lesions were the type of device used (AMPLATZER AVP III vs. others, HR 2.68 [1.29-5.54], p=0.008) and the number of procedures performed at the centre (top quartile vs. others, HR 1.93 [1.051-3.53], p=0.03). For aortic leaks the only predictor of procedural success was the leak size (≥10 mm vs. <10 mm, HR 3.077 [1.13-8.33], p=0.027). The overall major adverse events rate (death or emergency surgery or stroke) at 30 days was 5.6%; the only predictor for combined adverse events was New York Heart Association functional Class IV (HR 4.2 [1.42-12.34], p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous closure of PVL can be performed with a reasonable rate of procedural success and a low rate of major complications. The type of device used, the accumulated experience and the leak size are predictors of procedural success.