Transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation as a first-line choice or as a last resort? An analysis based on the ROUTE registry.

OBJECTIVES: Transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAo-TAVI) is a recently developed alternative to transapical (TA) or transfemoral (TF) TAVI. We aimed to analyse the effectiveness and safety of TAo-TAVI as a first line approach and to compare it to patients receiving TAo-TAVI as a last resort, which is current practice. METHODS: ROUTE is a prospective, multicentre registry to assess the clinical outcomes of TAo-TAVI. Patients without contraindications for TA- and TF-TAVI (TAo-first) were compared to patients with contraindications for both of these access routes (TAo-last). Outcome analysis was based on VARC II defined clinical end-points. RESULTS: Three hundred and one patients were included, of which 224 patients met TAo-first and 77 TAo-last criteria. The valve was delivered and catheter retrieved successfully in all patients. In the TAo-first group, rates of conversion to open surgery and requirement for a second valve were low and not different compared to TAo-last patients (1% vs. 3%, P = 0.46 and 1% vs. 3%, P = 0.46, respectively). This was also true for the rate of paravalvular regurgitation (≥ moderate: 4% vs. 3%). All-cause mortality at 30-days was 6% vs. 5% ( P = 0.76), rates of stroke 2% vs. 0% ( P = 0.24), pacemaker implantation (11% vs. 4%, P = 0.093), and life-threatening bleeding 4% vs. 3% ( P = 0.70). Valve safety (both 85%, P = 0.98) and clinical efficacy (80% vs. 82%; P = 0.73) did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although comparative data to TA and TF procedures were not available in the present analysis, findings suggest that TAo may be considered not only as a last resort strategy when classical access routes are deemed unfeasible, but also as a potential first-line option, with only low rates of paravalvular regurgitation and permanent pacemaker implantation. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT01991431.

Transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation using SAPIEN XT or SAPIEN 3 valves in the ROUTE registry.

OBJECTIVES: Transaortic (TAo) access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an alternative to the conventional transfemoral or transapical routes. Data comparing the characteristics and outcomes of TAo-TAVI using the SAPIEN XT and SAPIEN 3 heart valves are scarce. The objective of the current analysis was to provide such information. METHODS: ROUTE is an international, prospective, observational registry. Patients with severe calcific aortic stenosis scheduled for TAo-TAVI with an Edwards SAPIEN XT or a SAPIEN 3 heart valve were consecutively enrolled at 22 centres across Europe between February 2013 and February 2015. Periprocedural, in-hospital and 30-day complication rates were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 301 patients included, 126 (41.9%) received a SAPIEN 3 and 175 (58.1%) a SAPIEN XT. The SAPIEN 3 was associated with shorter procedure time (101 ± 35 vs 111 ± 40 min; P = 0.031) and a lower quantity of contrast agent used (87 ± 43 vs 112 ± 50 ml; P < 0.001). Balloon dilation was performed less often before (68.0% vs 78.3%; P = 0.045) and after implantation (13.6% vs 30.1%; P = 0.001). No statistically significant differences between the valve types were documented for overall (4.1% SAPIEN 3 vs 7.6% SAPIEN XT; P = 0.21), TAVI-related (0.8% vs 4.7%; P = 0.084) and cardiovascular mortality (2.4% vs 5.9%; P = 0.158). Major vascular complications were less frequent (0.8% vs 5.3%; P = 0.049), and there was a lower rate of moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (0.8% vs 5.1%; P = 0.050) in the SAPIEN 3 group. CONCLUSIONS: Both the SAPIEN XT and SAPIEN 3 were safely implanted via the TAo route, though the SAPIEN 3 may be associated with a higher procedural success rate and improved prognosis. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01991431.