Single access transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation for challenging iliofemoral route.

BACKGROUND: Optimal access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation is still a matter of debate. A tailored approach for patient anatomy is mandatory to reduce vascular complications and improve outcomes. AIMS: To optimize surgical technique in challenge scenario. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Here, we present a case of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement performed using single arterial access. RESULTS: A 92 years old patients affected by severe aortic stenosis showed no secondary arterial access. A single access approach was performed using the aortic valve calcification and the inferior margin of the second rib as lankdmarks for valve implantation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Alternative options for TAVR are mandatory to deal with complex cases. The described technique is a simple and reproducible approach.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with age ≤70 years: experience from two leading structural heart disease centers.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is emerging as an appealing management strategy for patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate, high or exceedingly high risk, but its risk-benefit profile in younger patients is less certain. We aimed to explore the outlook of patients aged 70 years or less and undergoing TAVI at 2 high-volume Italian institutions. METHODS: We retrospectively collected baseline, imaging, procedural and outcome features of patients with age ≤70 years in whom TAVI was attempted at participating centers between 2012 and 2021. Non-parametric tests and bootstrap resampling were used for inferential purposes. RESULTS: A total of 39 patients were included, out of >3000 screened with heart team involvement and >1500 receiving TAVI. Most common or relevant indications for TAVI reduced life expectancy (e.g. cardiogenic shock or severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, morbid obesity, active or recent extra-cardiac cancer, porcelain aorta, neurologic disability, cirrhosis, or prior surgical aortic valve replacement, as well as extreme cachexia, and Hutchinson-Gilford progeria. At least two contemporary high-risk features were present in most cases. Transapical access was used in 5 (12.8%) cases, and a sheathless approach in 15 (38.5%). A variety of devices were used, including both balloon- and self-expandable devices. Clinical outcomes were satisfactory, despite the high-risk profile, at both short- and mid-term, with no in-hospital death, and 5.1% (95% confidence interval 0-12.8%) mortality at a median follow-up of 15 months (minimum 1; maximum 85). Notably, no case of significant valve deterioration requiring reintervention occurred. CONCLUSIONS: In carefully selected patients with 70 years or less of age and prohibitive risk for surgery or reduced life expectancy, TAVI represents a safe option with a favorable mid-term survival and low rate of adverse events.

Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severely Reduced Left Ventricular Systolic Function in the Low Systolic Function and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (LOSTAVI) International Registry.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established therapy for severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis even in patients with impaired left ventricular systolic function. However, there is uncertainty on the clinical effectiveness of the currently available TAVR devices in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The LOSTAVI (Low Systolic function and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry is a retrospective observational study using baseline, procedural, discharge, and long-term follow-up details. A total of 3 groups of interest were distinguished: extremely reduced LVEF (<25%), severely reduced LVEF (25% to 30%), and reduced LVEF (31% to 35%). Unadjusted and adjusted analyses were carried out for in-hospital and follow-up outcomes. A total of 923 patients were included from 12 centers, with 146 patients (16%) with LVEF <25%, 425 (46%) with LVEF 25% to 30%, and 352 (38%) with LVEF 31% to 35%. Several baseline and procedural features were different across groups, including age, risk, functional class, and prevalence of bicuspid disease (all p <0.05). In-hospital mortality was similar in the 3 groups (7 [4.8%], 18 [4.2%], and 7 [2.0%], respectively, p = 0.661), but major adverse events were more common in those with extremely reduced and severely reduced LVEF (19 [13%], 53 [13%], and 25 [7.1%], respectively, p = 0.024). The 12-month follow-up confirmed the significant detrimental impact of reduced LVEF on both death (21 [14%], 49 [12%], and 25 [7.1%], respectively, p = 0.024) and major adverse events (37 [25%], 89 [21%], and 53 [15%], respectively, p = 0.016). The adjusted analysis confirmed the significant prognostic role of LVEF on both outcomes, whereas TAVR device type was not associated with death or major adverse events (all p >0.05). In conclusion, TAVR yields favorable early and 1-year results in patients with reduced LVEF, including those with extremely depressed systolic dysfunction. However, reduced LVEF still represents a major adverse prognostic factor for both short- and mid-term outcomes.