Comparison of Transfemoral versus Transsubclavian/Transaxillary access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abusnina, Waiel; Balakrishna, Akshay Machanahalli; Ismayl, Mahmoud; Latif, Azka; Mostafa, Mostafa Reda; Al‐Abdouh, Ahmad; Ahsan, Muhammad Junaid; Radaideh, Qais; Haddad, Toufik Mahfood; Goldsweig, Andrew M.; Ben‐Dor, Itsik; Mamas, Mamas A.; Dahal, Khagendra

doi:10.1016/j.ijcha.2022.101156

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Peripheral femoral access is the gold standard approach for Survival outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement and self-expanding versus balloon-expandable valves in patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction TAVR, a recent meta-analysis of 21 studies reported a better 1-year survival with femoral TAVR versus alternative approaches. 16 However, few studies have reported comparable outcomes for transfemoral and non-transfemoral TAVR. 17,18 The single parameter that significantly varies be-tween SEV and BEV groups was the residual transaortic gradient which is admitted that did not affect survival.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We mention that the non‐significant disproportion of non‐femoral TAVR procedure may partially explained the higher mortality rate in BEV subgroup. Peripheral femoral access is the gold standard approach for TAVR, a recent meta‐analysis of 21 studies reported a better 1‐year survival with femoral TAVR versus alternative approaches 16 . However, few studies have reported comparable outcomes for transfemoral and non‐transfemoral TAVR 17,18 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Survival outcomes of TAVR and self‐expanding versus balloon‐expandable valves in patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction

Matta,

Lhermusier,

Ohlmann

et al. 2024

ESC Heart Failure

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsThere is a growing body of literature on long‐term outcomes post‐transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), but to our knowledge, few research have focused on patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction. This challenging category of patients was excluded from the Partner 3 clinical trial. There are no data to guide the choice of valve type in patients with severely depressed ejection fraction. This study evaluates the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of TAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35%. It compares post‐TAVR survival outcomes with self‐expanding (SEV) versus balloon‐expandable (BEV) valves in the context of cardiac dysfunction.Methods and resultsA retrospective cohort was conducted on 977 patients who underwent TAVR at Toulouse University Hospital between January 2016 and December 2020. The study population included two groups: LVEF ≤ 35% (N = 157) and LVEF ≥ 50% (N = 820). The group of LVEF ≤ 35% was divided into two subgroups according to the type of implanted device: self‐expanding (N = 66) versus balloon‐expandable (N = 91). The living status of each of study's participants was observed in December 2022. Patients with low ejection fraction were younger (82 vs. 84.6 years) and commonly males (71.3% vs. 45.6%). Procedural success was almost 98% in both study groups (97.5% vs. 97.9%). The prevalence of all in‐hospital post‐TAVR complications [acute kidney injury (3.8% vs. 2.2%), major bleeding events (2.5% vs. 3.2%), stroke (1.3% vs. 1.6%), pacemaker implantation (10.2% vs. 10.7%), major vascular complication (4.5% vs. 4.5%), new onset atrial fibrillation (3.2% vs. 3.4%), and in‐hospital death (3.2% vs. 2.8%)] were similar between groups (LVEF ≤ 35% vs. LVEF ≥ 50%). No difference in long‐term survival has been revealed over 3.4 years (P = 0.268). In patients with LVEF ≤ 35%, except for post‐TAVR mean aortic gradient (7.8 ± 4.2 vs. 10.2 ± 3.6), baseline and procedural characteristics were comparable between SEV versus BEV subgroups. An early improvement in LVEF (from 29.2 ± 5.5 to 37.4 ± 10.8) was observed. In patients with LVEF ≤ 35%, the all‐cause mortality rate was significantly higher in BEV than that in SEV subgroups, respectively (40.7% vs. 22.7%, P = 0.018). Kaplan–Meier curve showed better survival outcomes after SEV implantation (P = 0.032). A Cox regression identified BEV as independent predictor of mortality [HR = 3.276, 95% CI (1.520–7.060), P = 0.002].ConclusionsIn the setting of low LVEF, TAVR remains a safe and effective procedure not associated with an increased risk of complications and mortality. SEV implantation may likely result in superior survival outcomes in patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival outcomes of TAVR and self‐expanding versus balloon‐expandable valves in patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction

Matta,

Lhermusier,

Ohlmann

et al. 2024

ESC Heart Failure

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Abusnina et al reported an unadjusted meta-analysis of 21 studies comparing TF and TAx access, which found increased 1-year mortality as well as a nonsignifcant trend towards an increased stroke rate in the TAx group. Given the reliance on nonpropensity-matched studies in their metaanalysis, the TAx population likely had a higher disease burden and shorter life expectancy relative to the TF population [18].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Alternative Peripheral and Transfemoral Approaches for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis of Propensity-Matched Studies

McGrath

Sun

Kawabori

et al. 2023

Journal of Cardiac Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Transfemoral (TF) access is the gold standard for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Alternative peripheral (AP) artery access such as the carotid or axillary artery is considered when the feasibility of femoral access is in doubt. The outcomes comparison of these 2 approaches is unclear due to limited sample sizes in prior studies. Our aim is to compare the clinical outcomes of TF- and AP-TAVR by conducting a meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies. Methods. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from inception up to and including February 2022 were searched by 3 separate researchers to identify articles reporting propensity-matched, comparative data on TF vs. AP-TAVR. Clinical outcomes were extracted from the articles and pooled for analysis. Results. Seven prior studies, including 9,004 patients, were included in our study, with 6,729 in the TF group and 2,275 in the AP group. In all studies, the baseline characteristics of the patients were highly propensity-matched with the full Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-analysis revealed higher in-hospital/30-day mortality (3.3% vs. 4.4%; OR 0.69; 95% CI (0.51, 0.94); P = 0.02 ) as well as the incidence of stroke (1.9% vs. 3.5%; OR 0.60; 95% CI (0.43, 0.84); P = 0.003 ) for the AP group. There were no significant differences in the incidence of major vascular complications, pacemaker implantation, bleeding, or acute kidney injury. Conclusions. Our meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies showed AP-TAVR contains an additional 1.1% risk of early mortality and an additional 1.6% risk of stroke compared to TF-TAVR. These risks should be considered when deciding on access.

show abstract

“…Percutaneous TF approach is the preferred access strategy for TAVI, with >90% of procedures performed using this route 38 . However, TF access involves manipulation of large bore sheaths and TAVI delivery systems in the often diseased iliofemoral vasculature, exposing patients to a risk of vascular complications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computed tomography derived anatomical predictors of vascular access complications following transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A systematic review

Androshchuk,

Chehab,

Prendergast

et al. 2023

Cathet Cardio Intervent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundVascular complications after percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are associated with adverse clinical outcomes and remain a significant challenge.AimsThe purpose of this review is to synthesize the existing evidence regarding the iliofemoral artery features predictive of vascular complications after TAVI on pre‐procedural contrast‐enhanced multidetector computed tomography (MDCT).MethodsA systematic search was performed in Embase and Medline (Pubmed) databases. Studies of patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI with MDCT were included. Studies with only valve‐in‐valve TAVI, planned surgical intervention and those using fluoroscopic assessment were excluded. Data on study cohort, procedural characteristics and significant predictors of vascular complications were extracted.ResultsWe identified 23 original studies involving 8697 patients who underwent TAVI between 2006 and 2020. Of all patients, 8514 (97.9%) underwent percutaneous transfemoral‐TAVI, of which 8068 (94.8%) had contrast‐enhanced MDCT. The incidence of major vascular complications was 6.7 ± 4.1% and minor vascular complications 26.1 ± 7.8%. Significant independent predictors of major and minor complications related to vessel dimensions were common femoral artery depth (>54 mm), sheath‐to‐iliofemoral artery diameter ratio (>0.91–1.19), sheath‐to‐femoral artery diameter ratio (>1.03–1.45) and sheath‐to‐femoral artery area ratio (>1.35). Substantial iliofemoral vessel tortuosity predicted 2–5‐fold higher vascular risk. Significant iliofemoral calcification predicted 2–5‐fold higher risk. The iliac morphology score was the only hybrid scoring system with predictive value.ConclusionsIndependent iliofemoral predictors of access‐site complications in TAVI were related to vessel size, depth, calcification and tortuosity. These should be considered when planning transfemoral TAVI and in the design of future risk prediction models.

show abstract

Comparison of Transfemoral versus Transsubclavian/Transaxillary access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 6 publications

References 47 publications

Survival outcomes of TAVR and self‐expanding versus balloon‐expandable valves in patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction

Survival outcomes of TAVR and self‐expanding versus balloon‐expandable valves in patients with advanced cardiac dysfunction

Comparison of Alternative Peripheral and Transfemoral Approaches for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis of Propensity-Matched Studies

Computed tomography derived anatomical predictors of vascular access complications following transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About