ABSTRACT
AIMS: No randomised study comparing the outcomes of transcarotid (TC) and transaxillary (TAx) TAVR has been conducted to date. The purpose of this study was to understand which approach should be the preferred alternative by comparing their outcomes using a propensity-matched comparison in a French multicentre registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 2010 to 2018, a French multicentre prospective registry included 502 patients, with 374 undergoing TC-TAVR and 128 TAx-TAVR for symptomatic aortic stenosis. Patients treated through TAx access were matched 1:2 with patients treated through the TC route by using a propensity score (20 clinical, anatomical and procedural variables) and by date of the procedure. The first outcome was mortality at one-month follow-up. The second outcome was one-month stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA). In propensity-matched analyses, the incidence of the primary outcome was similar in the TAx and TC groups (TAx 5.5% vs TC 4.5%, OR 1.23, 95% CI: 0.40-3.70). The secondary outcome was similar in TAx (3.2%) and TC (6.8%, OR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.14-1.84). Minor bleeding (2.7% vs 9.3%, OR 0.26, 95% CI: 0.07-0.92) and main access haematoma (3.6% vs 10.3%, OR 0.034, 95% CI: 0.09-0.92) were significantly more frequent with the TC access. One-month clinical efficacy and safety and one-year mortality did not differ according to the different routes. CONCLUSIONS: One-month mortality, one-month stroke/TIA and one-year mortality are similar with TAx-TAVR and TC-TAVR. However, TC-TAVR is accompanied by more minor bleeding and main access haematoma compared with the transaxillary route.
