Transaxillary TAVR Leads to Shorter Ventilator Duration and Hospital Length of Stay Compared to Transapical TAVR.

There is an increasing need for alternative access in patients with prohibitive surgical risk who have unsuitable anatomy for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Data on differences in periprocedural outcomes via alternative access sites are scarce. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent Transaxillary (TAX) or Transapical (TAP) TAVR at our center from 2012 to 2019. All data was summarized and displayed as mean ± SD for continuous variables and number of patients in each group. A propensity score was created for each patient in the dataset to determine the probability of axillary vs apical access. We adjusted for propensity score using multivariate logistic regression. A total of 102 patients underwent TAVR via alternative access: 28 patients (27%) via TAX and 74 patients (73%) via transapical (TAP) access. The average time to extubation in the TAX group was 5.3 ± 3.5 hours vs 9.1 ± 8.8 hours in the TAP patients (P = 0.03). None of the TAX patients required reintubation compared to 23% of TAP TAVR (P = 0.003). The average hospital length of stay for TAX was 2.4 ± 2.0 days compared to 6.9 ± 3.3 days (P < 0.0001) for TAP. TAX TAVR patients had significantly lower re-intubation rates, shorter time to extubation and in-hospital length of stay, but higher pacemaker implantation rates. TAX TAVR had improved periprocedural outcomes compared to TAP TAVR and remains the preferred TAVR alternative access.

Low risk TAVR: Long- term considerations and appropriate patient selection.

Recent trials have shown impressive results in low-risk patients undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) with low procedural complication rates, short hospital length of stay, zero mortality, and zero disabling stroke at 30 days and have led to a Food and Drug Administration indication for TAVR in these patients. The long-term data on subclinical leaflet thrombosis, valve durability, effects of pacemaker implantation, right ventricular pacing, and progressive paravalvular leak is unclear. We describe clinical and procedural considerations for patient selection and introduce future potential procedural challenges. Finally, we discuss the importance of considering life expectancy and durability prior to TAVR in this low risk relatively young cohort and emphasize the importance of a heart team approach.