open access
Comparison of transcarotid versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis and contraindications for transfemoral access
Affiliations- Department of Cardiac Surgery, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
- Department of Cardiac and Vascular Surgery Medical University of Gdansk, Poland
- Division of Cardiology and Structural Heart Diseases, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
- First Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Gdansk, Poland
- Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
open access
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and clinical outcomes of transcarotid
(TC) and transapical access (TA) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) patients whom the
transfemoral approach (TF) was not feasible.
Methods: The analysis included consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis treated
from 2017 to 2020 with TC-TAVI or TA-TAVI in two high-volume TAVI centers. The approach was
selected by multidisciplinary heart teams after analyzing multislice computed tomography of the heart,
aorta and peripheral arteries, transthoracic echocardiography and coronary angiography.
Results: One hundred and two patients were treated with alternative TAVI accesses (TC; n = 49 and
TA; n = 53) in our centers. The groups were similar regarding age, gender, New York Heart Association
class, and echocardiography parameters. Patients treated with TC-TAVI had significantly higher
surgical risk. The procedural success rate was similar in both groups (TC-TAVI 98%; TA-TAVI 98.1%;
p = 0.95). The rate of Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 defined clinical events was low in both
groups. The percentage of new-onset rhythm disturbances and permanent pacemaker implantation was
similar in TC and TA TAVI (4.1% vs. 11.3%; p = 0.17 and 10.2% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.39, respectively).
In the TA-TAVI group, significantly more cases of pneumonia and blood transfusions were observed
(11% vs. 0%; p = 0.01 and 30.2% vs. 12.2%; p = 0.03). The 30-day mortality was similar in TC and
TA groups (4.1% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.71, respectively).
Conclusions: Both TC and TA TAVI are safe procedures in appropriately selected patients and are
associated with a low risk of complications.
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and clinical outcomes of transcarotid
(TC) and transapical access (TA) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) patients whom the
transfemoral approach (TF) was not feasible.
Methods: The analysis included consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis treated
from 2017 to 2020 with TC-TAVI or TA-TAVI in two high-volume TAVI centers. The approach was
selected by multidisciplinary heart teams after analyzing multislice computed tomography of the heart,
aorta and peripheral arteries, transthoracic echocardiography and coronary angiography.
Results: One hundred and two patients were treated with alternative TAVI accesses (TC; n = 49 and
TA; n = 53) in our centers. The groups were similar regarding age, gender, New York Heart Association
class, and echocardiography parameters. Patients treated with TC-TAVI had significantly higher
surgical risk. The procedural success rate was similar in both groups (TC-TAVI 98%; TA-TAVI 98.1%;
p = 0.95). The rate of Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 defined clinical events was low in both
groups. The percentage of new-onset rhythm disturbances and permanent pacemaker implantation was
similar in TC and TA TAVI (4.1% vs. 11.3%; p = 0.17 and 10.2% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.39, respectively).
In the TA-TAVI group, significantly more cases of pneumonia and blood transfusions were observed
(11% vs. 0%; p = 0.01 and 30.2% vs. 12.2%; p = 0.03). The 30-day mortality was similar in TC and
TA groups (4.1% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.71, respectively).
Conclusions: Both TC and TA TAVI are safe procedures in appropriately selected patients and are
associated with a low risk of complications.
Keywords
aortic stenosis, transcarotid access, transapical access, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)
About this articleTitle
Comparison of transcarotid versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis and contraindications for transfemoral access
Journal
Issue
Article type
Original Article
Pages
188-195
Published online
2021-07-02
Page views
2821
Article views/downloads
541
DOI
Pubmed
Bibliographic record
Cardiol J 2023;30(2):188-195.
Keywords
aortic stenosis
transcarotid access
transapical access
transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)
Authors
Damian Hudziak
Radosław Targoński
Wojciech Wańha
Radosław Gocoł
Adrianna Hajder
Radosław Parma
Tomasz Figatowski
Tomasz Darocha
Marek A. Deja
Wojciech Wojakowski
Dariusz Jagielak
References (21)- Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H, Bash A, et al. Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: first human case description. Circulation. 2002; 106(24): 3006–3008.
- Lefèvre T, Kappetein AP, Wolner E, et al. One year follow-up of the multi-centre European PARTNER transcatheter heart valve study. Eur Heart J. 2011; 32(2): 148–157.
- Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group, ESC Scientific Document Group. 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2017; 38(36): 2739–2791.
- Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 70(2): 252–289.
- Auffret V, Lefevre T, Van Be, et al. Temporaltrends in transcatheteraorticvalvereplacement in France: FRANCE 2 to FRANCE TAVI. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 70: 42–55.
- Grover F, Vemulapalli S, Carroll J, et al. 2016 Annual Report of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 69(10): 1215–1230.
- Ye J, Cheung A, Lichtenstein SV, et al. Transapical aortic valve implantation in humans. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006; 131(5): 1194–1196.
- Liu Z, He R, Wu C, et al. Transfemoral versus transapical aortic implantation for aortic stenosis based on no significant difference in logistic euroscore: a meta-analysis. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016; 64(5): 374–381.
- Zhao An, Minhui Hu, Li Xu, et al. A meta-analysis of transfemoral versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation on 30-day and 1-year outcomes. Heart Surg Forum. 2015; 18(4): E161–E166.
- Modine T, Lemesle G, Azzaoui R, et al. Aortic valve implantation with the CoreValve ReValving System via left carotid artery access: first case report. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010; 140(4): 928–929.
- Hudziak D, Wojakowski W, Malinowski M, et al. Comparison of the short-term safety and efficacy of transcarotid and transfemoral access routes for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Kardiol Pol. 2021; 79(1): 31–38.
- Mylotte D, Sudre A, Teiger E, et al. Transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement: feasibility and safety. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(5): 472–480.
- Kirker EB, Hodson RW, Spinelli KJ, et al. The carotid artery as a preferred alternative access route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017; 104(2): 621–629.
- Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Généreux P, et al. Updated standardized end point definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. J ThoracCardiovascSurg. 2013; 145(1): 6–23.
- Hudziak D, Nowak A, Gocoł R, et al. Prospective registry on cerebral oximetry-guided transcarotid TAVI in patients with moderate-high risk aortic stenosis. Minerva Cardioangiol. 2019; 67(1): 11–18.
- Scarsini R, De Maria GL, Joseph J, et al. Impact of complications during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: how can they be avoided and managed? J Am Heart Assoc. 2019; 8(18): e013801.
- Wiewiórka Ł, Sobczyński R, Trębacz J, et al. Twelve-month outcomes of transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. Post Kardiol Interw. 2021; 17(1): 68–74.
- Ciuca C, Tarantini G, Latib A, et al. Trans-subclavian versus transapical access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A multicenter study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 87(2): 332–338.
- Gaede L, Kim WK, Blumenstein J, et al. Temporal trends in transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement : An analysis of aortic valve replacements in Germany during 2012-2014. Herz. 2017; 42(3): 316–324.
- Kumar N, Khera R, Fonarow GC, et al. Comparison of outcomes of transfemoral versus transapical approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2018; 122(9): 1520–1526.
- Wee IJ, Stonier T, Harrison M, et al. Transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A systematic review. J Cardiol. 2018; 71(6): 525–533.
