Transcarotid Versus Subclavian/Axillary Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With SAPIEN 3.

BACKGROUND: Subclavian/axillary (TAx) access has become the most frequently used alternative access route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Transcarotid (TC) TAVR has grown in popularity recently. Comparative data between these 2 contemporary access methods is lacking. METHODS: Data were extracted from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) Registry™ (June 2015 to October 2019) for patients undergoing TAVR by TC or TAx access with the SAPIEN 3 and SAPIEN 3 Ultra (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) transcatheter heart valves. Procedural, index hospitalization, and 30-day outcomes were analyzed for TC vs TAx groups after 1:2 propensity matching of patient baseline characteristics. RESULTS: The study included 3903 cases, of which 801 TC and 3102 TAx procedures were compared. After 1:2 propensity matching, TC TAVR was associated with similar 30-day mortality (4.3% vs 5.2%, P = .34) but a significantly lower risk of stroke (4.2% vs 7.4%; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.83; P = .003) compared with TAx access. Other outcomes that favored TC over TAx included shorter procedure time (117.0 vs 132.4 minutes; P < .001) and fluoroscopy time (16.6 vs 21.6 min; P < .001), lower contrast volume (78.5 vs 96.7 mL; P < .001), shorter length of stay in the intensive care unit (24.3 vs 25.0 hours; P = .02) and hospital (2.0 vs 3.0 days; P = .002), and more patients discharged to home (82.9% vs 74.6%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: TC TAVR is associated with similar mortality and a significant reduction in stroke compared with the TAx approach. If femoral access is precluded, TC may be a safe, or at times, preferred avenue of transcatheter valve delivery.

Novel strategies in aortic valve-in-valve therapy including bioprosthetic valve fracture and BASILICA.

An ageing population and increased utilisation of tissue valves in younger patients imply that the number of patients receiving transcatheter aortic valve implantation within failed bioprostheses will continue to increase. There are two major adverse events associated with aortic valve-in-valve procedures that may temper the enthusiasm for these appealing interventions. Residual stenosis is the "Achilles' heel" of aortic valve-in-valve, while coronary obstruction is an uncommon but life-threatening adverse event. Prevention of these adverse events is essential. Emerging tools and techniques enable operators to manipulate existing devices and to implant new ones inside them safely. Considering the available evidence, it seems that bioprosthetic valve ring fracture and bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction (BASILICA) may enable some solution. Until we have prosthetic valves that are both very durable and non-thrombogenic, we can expect that techniques and tools chosen to treat failed bioprosthetic valves effectively will continue to be designed and utilised.