Comparison of Transcarotid vs. Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

BACKGROUND: Recently, the carotid artery has been used as an alternative approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this study was to prove the safety and feasibility of transcarotid (TC) vs. transfemoral (TF) TAVI. Methods and Results: This retrospective study enrolled 726 consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. All patients underwent TC-TAVI or TF-TAVI at Hôpital Haut-Lévèque, Bordeaux Heart University Hospital between September 2012 and October 2017. The TC-TAVI (n=83) and TF-TAVI (n=643) groups were compared statistically. The EuroSCORE II was significantly higher (8.2±6.7 vs. 6.4±5.5; P=0.007) and rates of current smoking, dyslipidemia and peripheral arterial disease were higher in the TC-TAVI than TF-TAVI group. All TC-TAVIs and 9.3% of TF-TAVIs were performed under general anesthesia. Radiation time was significantly shorter in the TC-TAVI than TF-TAVI group (14.5±6.0 vs. 23.0±10.8 min; P<0.001). Postimplant balloon valvuloplasty was performed more frequently in the TF-TAVI than TC-TAVI group (7.2% vs. 19.4%; P=0.006). Postoperative echocardiographic data were similar between the 2 groups, and there were no significant differences in 30-day mortality (8.4% vs. 5.0%; P=0.189) or stroke rate (1.2% vs. 2.6%; P=0.428) between the TF-TAVI and TC-TAVI groups. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility and 30-day safety of TC-TAVI and TF-TAVI are similar. When TF-TAVI is not suitable anatomically for a particular patient, TC-TAVI is a preferable alternative.

Low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis despite normal ejection fraction is associated with severe left ventricular dysfunction as assessed by speckle-tracking echocardiography: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Low-flow low-gradient (LFLG) is sometimes observed in severe aortic stenosis (AS) despite normal ejection fraction, but its frequency and mechanisms are still debated. We aimed to describe the characteristics of patients with LFLG AS and assess the presence of longitudinal left ventricular dysfunction in these patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a multicenter prospective study, 340 consecutive patients with severe AS and normal ejection fraction were studied. Longitudinal left ventricular function was assessed by 2D-strain and global afterload by valvulo-arterial impedance. Patients were classified according to flow and gradient: low flow was defined as a stroke volume index ≤35 mL/m(2), low gradient as a mean gradient ≤40 mm Hg. Most patients (n=258, 75.9%) presented with high-gradient AS, and 82 patients (24.1%) with low-gradient AS. Among the latter, 52 (15.3%) presented with normal flow and low gradient and 30 (8.8%) with LFLG. As compared with normal flow and low gradient, patients with LFLG had more severe AS (aortic valve area=0.7±0.12 cm(2) versus 0.86±0.14 cm(2)), higher valvulo-arterial impedance (5.5±1.1 versus 4±0.8 mm Hg/mL/m(2)), and worse longitudinal left ventricular function (basal longitudinal strain=-11.6±3.4 versus -14.8±3%; P<0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: LFLG AS is observed in 9% of patients with severe AS and normal ejection fraction and is associated with high global afterload and reduced longitudinal systolic function. Patients with normal-flow low-gradient AS are more frequent and present with less severe AS, normal afterload, and less severe longitudinal dysfunction. Severe left ventricular longitudinal dysfunction is a new explanation to the concept of LFLG AS.