Normal-Flow Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: Comparing the U.S. and European Guidelines.

Patients with normal-flow low-gradient (NFLG) severe aortic stenosis present both diagnostic and management challenges, with debate about the whether this represents true severe stenosis and the need for valve replacement. Studies exploring the natural history without intervention have shown similar outcomes of patients with NFLG severe aortic stenosis to those with moderate aortic stenosis and better outcomes after valve replacement than those with low-flow low-gradient severe aortic stenosis. Most studies (all observational) have shown that aortic valve replacement was associated with a survival benefit vs surveillance. Based on available data, the European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery guidelines and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging/American Society of Echocardiography suggest that these patients are more likely to have moderate aortic stenosis. This clinical entity is not mentioned in the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. Here we review the definition of NFLG severe aortic stenosis, potential diagnostic algorithms and points of error, the data supporting different management strategies, and the differing guidelines and outline the unanswered questions in the diagnosis and management of these challenging patients.

National Variation in Hospital MTEER Outcomes and Correlation With TAVR Outcomes: STS/ACC TVT Registry Analysis.

BACKGROUND: A single, multitiered valve center designation has been proposed to publicly identify centers with expertise for all valve therapies. The correlation between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (MTEER) procedures is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to examine the relationship between site-level volumes and outcomes for TAVR and MTEER. We further explored variability between sites for MTEER outcomes. METHODS: Using the STS/ACC TVT (Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy) national registry, TAVR and MTEER procedures at sites offering both therapies from 2013 to 2022 were examined. Sites were ranked into deciles of adjusted in-hospital and 30-day outcomes separately for TAVR and MTEER and compared. Stepwise, hierarchical multivariable models were constructed for MTEER outcomes, and the median OR was calculated. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2022, 384,394 TAVRs and 53,274 MTEERs (median annualized volumes: 93.6 and 18.8, respectively) were performed across 453 U.S. sites. Annualized TAVR and MTEER volumes were moderately correlated (r = 0.48; P < 0.001). After adjustment, 14.3% of sites had the same decile rank for TAVR and MTEER 30-day composite outcome, 50.6% were within 2 decile ranks; 35% had more discordant outcomes for the 2 procedures (P = 0.0005). For MTEER procedures, the median OR for the 30-day composite outcome was 1.57 (95% CI: 1.51-1.64), indicating a 57% variability in outcome by site. CONCLUSIONS: There is modest correlation between hospital-level volumes for TAVR and MTEER but low interprocedural correlation of outcomes. For similar patients, site-level variability for mortality/morbidity following MTEER was high. Factors influencing outcomes and "centers of excellence" as a whole may differ for TAVR and MTEER.

Diastolic Dysfunction and Health Status Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Background: Baseline left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) is associated with poor health status in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), but health status improvement after TAVR appears similar across all grades of LVDD. Here, we aim to examine the relationship between changes in LVDD severity and health status outcomes following TAVR. Methods: Patients who underwent TAVR and had evaluable LVDD at both baseline and 1 year in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2 SAPIEN 3 registries and PARTNER 3 trial were analyzed. LVDD grade was evaluated using echocardiography core lab data and an adapted definition of American Society of Echocardiography guidelines. Health status was assessed using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary (KCCQ-OS) score. The association between ΔLVDD severity and ΔKCCQ-OS was examined using linear regression models adjusted for baseline KCCQ-OS. Results: Of 1100 patients, 724 (65.8%), 283 (25.7%), and 93 (8.5%) had grade 0/1, 2, and 3 LVDD at baseline, respectively. At 1 year, LVDD severity was unchanged in 790 (71.8%) patients, improved in 189 (17.2%), and worsened in 121 (11.0%). Among 376 patients with baseline grade 2 or 3 LVDD, 50.3% had improvement in LVDD. In the overall cohort, KCCQ-OS score improved by 21.9 points at 1 year. There was a statistically significant association between change in LVDD severity (improved, unchanged, and worsened) and ΔKCCQ-OS at 1 year (p = 0.007). Conclusions: Change in LVDD grade was associated with change in health status 1 year following TAVR.

Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair in COAPT-Ineligible Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (MTEER) was approved in the United States for treatment of functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) based on results from the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to analyze outcomes of MTEER in FMR patients who would have been excluded from COAPT. METHODS: MTEER procedures performed for FMR in the TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry between January 1, 2013, and April 30, 2020, were categorized as "trial-ineligible" if any of the following were present: cardiogenic shock, inotropic support, left ventricular ejection fraction <20%, left ventricular end-systolic dimension >7 cm, home oxygen use, or severe tricuspid regurgitation. Trial-ineligible and trial-eligible groups were compared through 1 year using multivariable models. The primary endpoint was 1-year death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). RESULTS: Of 6,675 patients who underwent MTEER for FMR, 3,721 (55.7%) were trial-eligible and 2,954 (44.3%) were trial-ineligible. Trial-ineligible patients had lower rates of technical procedural success (86.9% vs 92.6%; P < 0.001) and more frequent in-hospital complications (11.8% vs 5.7%; P < 0.001) compared with trial-eligible patients. A clinically meaningful improvement in health status at 30 days was observed in 78.9% and 77.0% of patients in the trial-ineligible and trial-eligible groups, respectively. There was a higher risk of 1-year death or HFH (HR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.57-1.91; P < 0.001) in trial-ineligible patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who underwent MTEER for FMR in the TVT Registry, nearly one-half would have been ineligible for the COAPT trial. Health status improvement at 30 days was similar in COAPT-ineligible and COAPT-eligible patients, but trial-ineligible patients had higher 1-year rates of death or HFH.

Site Variability in Cerebral Embolic Protection for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and Association With Outcomes.

Background: The effectiveness of cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPD) in mitigating stroke after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains uncertain, and therefore CEPD may be utilized differently across US hospitals. This study aims to characterize the hospital-level pattern of CEPD use during TAVI in the US and its association with outcomes. Methods: Patients treated with nontransapical TAVI in the 2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database were included. Hospitals were categorized as CEPD non-users and CEPD users. The following outcomes were compared: the composite of in-hospital stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), in-hospital ischemic stroke, death, and cost of hospitalization. Logistic regression models were used for risk adjustment of clinical outcomes. Results: Of 41,822 TAVI encounters, CEPD was used in 10.6% (n = 4422). Out of 392 hospitals, 65.8% were CEPD non-user hospitals and 34.2% were CEPD users. No difference was observed between CEPD non-users and CEPD users in the risk of in-hospital stroke or TIA (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.99 [0.86-1.15]), ischemic stroke (adjusted OR = 1.00 [0.85-1.18]), or in-hospital death (adjusted OR = 0.86 [0.71-1.03]). The cost of hospitalization was lower in CEPD non-users. Conclusions: Two-thirds of hospitals in the US do not use CEPD for TAVI, and no significant difference was observed in neurologic outcomes among patients treated at CEPD non-user and CEPD user hospitals.

Mitral Valve Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair Volumes and Trends.

Background: Despite an association between operator volumes and procedural success, there remains an incomplete understanding of the contemporary utilization and procedural volumes for mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (MTEER). We aimed to identify annual operator procedural volumes, temporal trends, and geographic variability for MTEER among Medicare patients in the United States (US). Methods: We queried the National Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Database for a CPT code (33418) specific for MitraClip device from 2015 through 2019. We analyzed annual operator procedural volumes and incidence and identified longitudinal and geographic trends in MTEER utilization. Results: From 2015 through 2019, a total of 27,034 MTEER procedures were performed among Medicare patients in the US. The nationwide incidence increased from 6.2 per 100,000 patients in 2015 to 23.8 per 100,000 patients in 2019, a 283% increase over the study period (Ptrend < 0.001). The incidence of MTEER by state varied by nearly 900% (range 5.5 to 54.9 per 100,000 person-years). In 2019, the mean annual MTEER operator annual volume was 9.1 MTEER procedures and had grown from 6.2 per year in 2015. Conclusions: In this nationwide study of Medicare beneficiaries in the United States, we identified a significant and sustained increase in the utilization of MTEER devices and operators and growth in annual procedural volumes from 2015 through 2019 with considerable variability in utilization by state. Further studies are needed to understand the clinical impact of variability in utilization and the optimal procedural volumes to ensure high efficacy outcomes and maintain critical access to MTEER therapies.

Feasibility of Coronary Access Following Redo-TAVR for Evolut Failure: A Computed Tomography Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronary accessibility following redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (redo-TAVR) is increasingly important, particularly in younger low-risk patients. This study aimed to predict coronary accessibility after simulated Sapien-3 balloon-expandable valve implantation within an Evolut supra-annular, self-expanding valve using pre-TAVR computed tomography (CT) imaging. METHODS: A total of 219 pre-TAVR CT scans from the Evolut Low-Risk CT substudy were analyzed. Virtual Evolut and Sapien-3 valves were sized using CT-based diameters. Two initial Evolut implant depths were analyzed, 3 and 5 mm. Coronary accessibility was evaluated for 2 Sapien-3 in Evolut implant positions: Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4 and Evolut node 5. RESULTS: With a 3-mm initial Evolut implant depth, suitable coronary access was predicted in 84% of patients with the Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4, and in 31% of cases with the Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 5 (P<0.001). Coronary accessibility improved with a 5-mm Evolut implant depth: 97% at node 4 and 65% at node 5 (P<0.001). When comparing 3- to 5-mm Evolut implant depth, sinus sequestration was the lowest with Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4 (13% versus 2%; P<0.001), and the highest at Evolut node 5 (61% versus 32%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Coronary accessibility after Sapien-3 in Evolut redo-TAVR relates to the initial Evolut implant depth, the Sapien-3 outflow position within the Evolut, and the native annular anatomy. This CT-based quantitative analysis may provide useful information to inform and refine individualized preprocedural CT planning of the initial TAVR and guide lifetime management for future coronary access after redo-TAVR. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02701283.

Transcarotid versus transaxillary access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement with a self-expanding valve: A propensity-matched analysis.

Transaxillary access has been the most frequently used nonfemoral access route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding valve. Use of transcarotid TAVR is increasing; however, comparative data on these methods are limited. We compared outcomes following transcarotid or transaxillary TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular valve. Methods: The Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry was queried for TAVR procedures using transaxillary and transcarotid access between July 2015 and June 2021. Patients received a self-expanding Evolut R, PRO, or PRO + valve (Medtronic) and had 1-year follow-up. Thirty-day and 1-year outcomes were compared in transcarotid and transaxillary groups after 1:2 propensity score-matching. Multivariable regression models were fitted to identify predictors of key end points. Results: The propensity score-matched cohort included 576 patients receiving transcarotid and 1142 receiving transaxillary access. Median procedure time (99 vs 118 minutes; P < .001) and hospital stay (2 vs 3 days; P < .001) were shorter with transcarotid versus transaxillary access. At 30 days, patients with transcarotid access had similar mortality (Kaplan-Meier estimates 3.7% vs 4.3%, P = .57) but significantly lower stroke (3.1% vs 5.9%; P = .017) and mortality or stroke (6.0% vs 8.9%; P = .033) compared with patients receiving transaxillary access. Similar differences were observed at 1 year. Transaxillary access was associated with increased risk of 30-day stroke (hazard ratio, 2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-3.58) by multivariable regression analysis. Conclusions: Transcarotid versus transaxillary access for TAVR using a self-expanding valve is associated with procedural benefits and significantly lower stroke and mortality or stroke at 30 days. In patients with unsuitable femoral anatomy, transcarotid access may be the preferred delivery route for self-expanding valves.

Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Asymptomatic or Minimally Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in minimally symptomatic patients. OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients with minimally symptomatic severe aortic stenosis treated with TAVR in the STS/ACC TVT registry. METHODS: Minimally symptomatic status was defined as a baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score (KCCQ-OS) ≥75. Clinical and health status outcomes of TAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis and normal left ventricular ejection fraction were compared between minimally symptomatic patients and those with moderate or severe symptoms. RESULTS: Among 231,285 patients who underwent TAVR between 2015 and 2021 (median age 80.0 years [IQR: 74.0-86.0 years], 47.5% female), 20.0% were minimally symptomatic before TAVR. Survival at 1 year was higher in minimally symptomatic patients vs those with moderate or severe symptoms (adjusted HR for death: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.66-0.75]). Mean KCCQ-OS increased by 2.7 points (95% CI: 2.6-2.9 points) at 30 days and 3.8 points (95% CI: 3.6-4.0 points) at 1 year in minimally symptomatic patients compared with increases of 32.2 points (95% CI: 32.0-32.3 points) at 30 days and 34.9 points (95% CI: 34.7-35.0 points) at 1 year in more symptomatic patients. Minimally symptomatic patients had higher odds of being alive and well at 1 year (OR: 1.19 [95% CI: 1.16-1.23]). CONCLUSIONS: Although minimally symptomatic patients treated with TAVR experience only small improvements in health status, their overall outcomes are favorable with a higher likelihood of survival with good health status at 1 year compared with more symptomatic patients.

Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair for mitral regurgitation using PASCAL or MitraClip.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data regarding the comparative efficacy and safety of Mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (MTEER) using the PASCAL or MitraClip systems for patients with mitral regurgitation (MR). METHODS: An electronic search was conducted for MEDLINE, COCHRANE, and EMBASE, through February 2023, for studies comparing the clinical outcomes of MTEER using PASCAL versus MitraClip systems among patients with severe MR. The primary study outcome was residual MR ≤ 2 at discharge. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The final analysis included six studies with a total of 1581 patients, with a weighted follow-up period of 3.5 months. Two studies only included patients with degenerative MR, while the remaining studies included both degenerative and functional MR. There was no significant difference in procedure duration between MTEER with the PASCAL or MitraClip systems. There was no difference in residual MR ≤ 2 at discharge (94.7% vs. 91.9%; odds ratio [OR]: 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-2.27) or residual MR ≤ 2 at the mid-term follow-up (94.6% vs. 91.0%, p = 0.05) among the PASCAL versus MitraClip systems. There was no difference between both groups in residual MR ≤ 1 at discharge (73.1% vs. 63.8%, p = 0.12), while there was greater incidence of residual MR ≤ 1 at midterm follow-up with the PASCAL system (71.3% vs. 56.2%, p < 0.001). There was no difference between the PASCAL and MitraClip MTEER systems in technical success (97.0% vs. 97.9%, p = 0.15), procedural success (89.1% vs. 87.1%, p = 0.78), single leaflet detachment (1.8% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.55), or all-cause mortality (3.6% vs. 4.6%, p = 0.71). CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, we demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety between the PASCAL and MitraClip MTEER systems at short- and mid-term assessments. Randomized trials are warranted to evaluate the comparative long-term outcomes between both MTEER systems.

Updates on bioprosthetic valve fracture.

INTRODUCTION: Valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter valve replacement has emerged as a feasible and potentially safer treatment option for failed bioprosthetic surgical valves (BSVs). However, the VIV procedure carries an inherent risk of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) and bioprosthetic valve remodeling (BVR) by either fracturing or stretching the surgical valve ring allows for a more optimal expansion of the transcatheter heart valve (THV) and beneficial effects on post-implant valve hemodynamics and perhaps long-term valve durability. AREAS COVERED: This is an expanded overview of BVF and BVR to facilitate VIV transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), with detailed discussion on lessons learned from bench testing studies and translation to procedural technique and clinical experience incorporating up-to-date evidence and experience with BVF in non-aortic positions. EXPERT OPINION: BVF and BVR improve valve hemodynamics following VIV-TAVR, with timing of BVF being an important determinant of procedure safety and efficacy; however, longer-term data are needed to determine long-term clinical outcomes including mortality, valve hemodynamics, and valve reintervention. In addition, further research will be needed to understand the safety and efficacy of these procedures in any new generation BSV or THV and to better define the role of these techniques in the pulmonic, mitral, and tricuspid positions.

Outcomes of Bioprosthetic Valve Fracture in Patients Undergoing Valve-in-Valve TAVR.

BACKGROUND: Valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly used to treat degenerated surgical bioprostheses. Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) has been shown to improve hemodynamic status in VIV TAVR in case series. However, the safety and efficacy of BVF are unknown. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of VIV TAVR using SAPIEN 3 and SAPIEN 3 Ultra valves with or without BVF using data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry. METHODS: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included echocardiography-derived valve gradient and aortic valve area. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 2,975 patients underwent VIV TAVR from December 15, 2020, to March 31, 2022. BVF was attempted in 619 patients (21%). In adjusted analyses, attempted BVF was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (OR: 2.51; 95% CI: 1.30-4.84) and life-threatening bleeding (OR: 2.55; 95% CI: 1.44-4.50). At discharge, VIV TAVR with attempted BVF was associated with larger aortic valve area (1.6 cm2 vs 1.4 cm2; P < 0.01) and lower mean gradient (16.3 mm Hg vs 19.2 mm Hg; P < 0.01). When BVF was compared with no BVF according to timing (before vs after transcatheter heart valve implantation), BVF after transcatheter heart valve implantation was associated with improved hemodynamic status and similar mortality. CONCLUSIONS: BVF as an adjunct to VIV TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 and SAPIEN 3 Ultra valves is associated with a higher risk for in-hospital mortality and significant bleeding and modest improvements in echocardiography-derived hemodynamic status. The timing of BVF is an important determinant of safety and efficacy.

Timing of bioprosthetic valve fracture in transcatheter valve-in-valve intervention: impact on valve durability and leaflet integrity.

BACKGROUND: Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) can be used to improve transcatheter heart valve (THV) haemodynamics following a valve-in-valve (ViV) intervention. However, whether BVF should be performed before or after THV deployment and the implications on durability are unknown.  Aims: We sought to assess the impact of BVF timing on long-term THV durability. METHODS: The impact of BVF timing was assessed using small ACURATE neo (ACn) or 23 mm SAPIEN 3 (S3) THV deployed in 21 mm Mitroflow valves compared to no-BVF controls. Valves underwent accelerated wear testing up to 200 million (M) cycles (equivalent to 5 years). At 200M cycles, THV were evaluated by hydrodynamic testing, second-harmonic generation (SHG) microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and histology. RESULTS: At 200M cycles, the regurgitant fraction (RF) and effective orifice area (EOA) for the ACn were 8.03±0.30%/1.74±0.01 cm2 (no BVF), 12.48±0.70%/1.97±0.02 cm2 (BVF before ViV) and 9.29±0.38%/2.21±0.0 cm2 (BVF after ViV), respectively. For the S3 these values were 2.63±0.51%/1.26±0.01 cm2, 2.03±0.42%/1.65±0.01 cm2, and 1.62±0.38%/2.22±0.01 cm2, respectively. Further, SHG and SEM revealed a higher degree of superficial leaflet damage when BVF was performed after ViV for the ACn and S3. However, the histological analysis revealed significantly less damage, as determined by matrix density analysis, through the entire leaflet thickness when BVF was performed after ViV with the S3 and a similar but non-significant trend with the ACn.  Conclusions: BVF performed after ViV appears to offer superior long-term EOA without increased RF. Ultrastructure leaflet analysis reveals that the timing of BVF can differentially impact leaflets, with more superficial damage but greater preservation of overall leaflet structure when BVF is performed after ViV.

Rehospitalization Events After Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From the PARTNER Trial.

BACKGROUND: Rehospitalization is a common end point in clinical trials of structural heart interventions, but whether rehospitalization is clinically and prognostically relevant in these patients is uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of rehospitalization events after aortic valve replacement (AVR) and their association with mortality and health status. METHODS: The study population included patients who underwent transcatheter or surgical AVR in the PARTNER I' II' and III trials (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves). Health status was assessed with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-overall summary score. The primary analysis focused on heart failure hospitalization within 1 year after AVR and its association with mortality, poor outcome (death, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-overall summary score <60 or decrease by ≥10), and health status at 1 year using adjusted models. Secondary analyses examined the prognostic associations of rehospitalization due to a composite of heart failure, valve-related, or procedure-related causes. RESULTS: Among 3403 patients treated with AVR (2008 transcatheter AVR, 1395 surgical AVR), the 1-year incidence was 6.7% for heart failure hospitalization and 9.7% for rehospitalization due to a composite of heart failure, valve-related, or procedure-related causes. Heart failure hospitalization after AVR was associated with increased risk of 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 3.97 [2.48 to 6.36]; P<0.001), poor outcome (OR, 2.76 [1.73 to 4.40]; P<0.001), and worse health status (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-overall summary mean difference -9.8 points [-13.8 to -5.8]; P<0.001). Rehospitalization due to a composite of heart failure, valve-related, or procedure-related causes was similarly associated with increased 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 4.64 [3.11 to 6.92]; P<0.001), poor outcome (OR, 2.06 [1.38 to 3.07]; P=0.0004), and worse health status (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-overall summary mean difference -8.8 points [-11.8 to -5.7]; P<0.001). There was no effect modification by treatment type (transcatheter AVR versus surgical AVR) for these associations. CONCLUSIONS: Heart failure hospitalization and rehospitalization after AVR are associated with increased risk of mortality and worse 1-year health status. These findings confirm the clinical and prognostic relevance of rehospitalization end points for trials of AVR. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

Network Meta-Analysis Comparing the Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Alternative Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have pair-wise compared access sites for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) but pooled estimate of overall comparative efficacy and safety outcomes are not well known. We sought to compare short- and long-term outcomes following various alternative access routes for TAVR. METHODS: Thirty-four studies with a pooled sample size of 32,756 patients were selected by searching PubMed and Cochrane library databases from inception through 11th June 2021 for patients undergoing TAVR via 1 of 6 different access sites: Transfemoral (TF), Transaortic (TAO), Transapical (TA), Transcarotid (TC), Transaxillary/Subclavian (TSA), and Transcaval (TCV). Data were extracted to conduct a frequentist network meta-analysis with a random-effects model using TF access as a reference group. RESULTS: Compared with TF, both TAO [RR 1.91, 95% CI (1.46-2.50)] and TA access [RR 2.12, 95% CI (1.84-2.46)] were associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality. No significant difference was observed for stroke, myocardial infarction, major bleeding, conversion to open surgery, and major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events at 30 days between different accesses. Major vascular complications were lower in TA [RR 0.43, (95% CI, 0.28-0.67)] and TC [RR 0.51, 95% CI (0.35-0.73)] access compared to TF. The 1-year mortality was higher in TAO [RR of 1.35, (95% CI, 1.01-1.81)] and TA [RR 1.44, (95% CI, 1.14-1.81)] groups. CONCLUSION: Non-thoracic alternative access site utilization for TAVR implantation (TC, TSA and TCV) is associated with outcomes similar to conventional TF access. Thoracic TAVR access (TAO and TA) translates into increased short and long-term mortality.

Transcarotid versus transthoracic access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A propensity-matched analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Transcarotid access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement is emerging as an alternative to more traditional nonfemoral access options such as transapical or transaortic; however, comparative data are limited. The purpose of the study was to analyze outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement using transcatheter compared with transthoracic (transapical/transaortic) access. METHODS: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry was queried for patients who underwent transcarotid, transapical, or transaortic transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, Calif) transcatheter heart valve between June 2015 and July 2019. Thirty-day unadjusted outcomes were evaluated, and propensity score matching and logistic regression were used to compare transcatheter access with transthoracic access. RESULTS: In the propensity-matched analysis, 667 transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedures were compared with 1334 transthoracic procedures. Transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with lower mortality (4.2% vs 7.7%, P = .004), less new-onset atrial fibrillation (2.2% vs 12.1%, P < .0001), fewer readmissions at 30 days (9.8% vs 16.1%, P = .0006), shorter median length of stay (3.0 vs 6.0 days, P < .0001), shorter median intensive care unit stay (25 vs 47.2 hours, P < .0001), and greater 30-day Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score improvement from baseline (25.1 vs 20.8, P = .007). Stroke (4.3% vs 3.7%, P = .44) and major vascular complications (1.4% vs 1.9%, P = .40) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using transcarotid access is associated with lower 30-day mortality, less atrial fibrillation, shorter intensive care unit and overall length of stay, fewer readmissions, greater improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores, and no significant difference in stroke or major vascular complications compared with transthoracic access.