Transcarotid Versus Transapical and Transaortic Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using transcarotid access may improve outcomes compared with transapical or transaortic access. METHODS: This study retrospectively evaluated 165 patients who were undergoing alternate access TAVR using transcarotid (n = 84), transapical (n = 48), and transaortic (n = 33) access. The 30-day outcomes and 2-year Kaplan-Meier survival were analyzed using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The median Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was similar among patients treated by transcarotid, transapical, and transaortic access (9.0% [interquartile range (IQR), 6.6, 12.0] vs 9.1% [IQR, 7.0, 11.7] vs 10.0% [IQR, 8.5, 13.0]; p = 0.14), respectively. Patients treated with transcarotid TAVR had a trend toward lower 30-day mortality (3.6% [3 of 84] vs 6.3% [3 of 48] vs 15.2% [5 of 33]; p = 0.09) and significantly better 2-year survival (88.4% vs 79.2% vs 63.6%; p = 0.004) compared with patients treated by transapical and transaortic access, respectively. In addition, transcarotid access was associated with a shorter median length of stay (3.0 days [IQR, 2.0, 5.0] vs 6.5 days [IQR. 5.0, 9.5] vs 7.0 days [IQR, 5.0, 9.0]; p < 0.001), lower transfusion rate (4.8% [4 of 84] vs 12.0% [12 of 48] vs 24.2% [8 of 33]; p < 0.001), higher likelihood of discharge to home without home health care (89.3% [75 of 84] vs 54.2% [26 of 48] vs 42.4% [14 of 33]; p < 0.001), and similar 30-day stroke rates (2.4% [2 of 84] vs 2.1% [1 of 48] vs 3.0% [1 of 33];p = 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Transcarotid compared with transapical and transaortic access for TAVR is associated with shorter length of stay, fewer transfusions, more frequent discharge to home, and better 2-year survival.