RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In patients not suitable for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), several access strategies can be chosen. AIM: To evaluate the use and patient outcomes of transaxillary (TAx), transapical (TA), and transaortic (TAo) as alternative access for TAVI in Germany; to further evaluate surgical cutdown vs. percutaneous TAx access. METHODS: All patients entered the German Aortic Valve Registry (GARY) between 2011 and 2019 who underwent non-transfemoral TAVI were included in this analysis. Patients with TA, TAo, or TAx TAVI were compared using a weighted propensity score model. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis was performed for TAx regarding the percutaneous or surgical cutdown approach. RESULTS: Overall, 9686 patients received a non-transfemoral access. A total of 8918 patients (92.1%) underwent TA, 398 (4.1%) TAo, and 370 (3.8%) TAx approaches. Within the TAx subgroup, 141 patients (38.1%) received subclavian cutdown, while 200 (54.1%) underwent a percutaneous approach. The TA patients had a significantly lower 30-day survival than TAx patients (TA 90.92% vs. TAx 95.59%, p = 0.006; TAo 92.22% vs. TAx 95.59%, p = 0.102). Comparing percutaneous and cutdown TAx approaches, no significant differences were seen. However, more vascular complications occurred (TA 1.8%, TAo 2.4%, TAx 12.2%; p < .001), and the hospital length of stay was shorter (TA 12.9 days, TAo 14.1 days, TAx 12 days; p < .001) after TAx access. CONCLUSION: It may be reasonable to consider TAx access first in patients not suitable for TF-TAVI, because the 30-day survival was higher compared with TA access and the 1-year survival was higher compared with TAo access. It remains important for the heart teams to offer alternative access modalities for patients not amenable to the standard TF-TAVI approaches.
RESUMO
Background: Coronary obstruction following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a life-threatening complication. For patients at elevated risk, it is not known how valve choice is influenced by clinical and anatomic factors and how outcomes differ between valve platforms. For patients at high risk of coronary obstruction, we sought to describe the anatomical and clinical characteristics of patients treated with both balloon-expandable (BE) and self-expanding (SE) valves. Methods: This was a multicenter international registry of patients undergoing TAVR who are considered to be at high risk of coronary obstruction and receiving pre-emptive coronary protection. Results: A total of 236 patients were included. Patients receiving SE valves were more likely to undergo valve-in-valve procedures and also had smaller sinuses of Valsalva and valve-to-coronary distance. Three-year cardiac mortality was 21.6% with SE vs 3.7% with BE valves. This was primarily driven by increased rates of definite or probable coronary occlusion, which occurred in 12.1% of patients with SE valves vs 2.1% in patients with BE valves. Conclusions: In patients undergoing TAVR with coronary protection, those treated with SE valves had increased rates of clinical and anatomic features that increase the risk of coronary obstruction. These include an increased frequency of valve-in-valve procedures, smaller sinuses of Valsalva, and smaller valve-to-coronary distances. These patients were observed to have increased cardiac mortality compared with patients treated with BE valves, but this is likely due to their higher risk clinical and anatomic phenotypes rather than as a function of the valve type itself.