Comparison of the short-term safety and efficacy of transcarotid and transfemoral access routes for transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: Transfemoral access is the preferred approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), as it is characterized by the lowest complication rate. In the majority of patients ineligible for transfemoral access, the transcarotid approach can be used. AIMS: This study aimed to compare short­term outcomes in 2 groups of patients treated with transcarotid or transfemoral TAVI. METHODS: A retrospective comparison included 265 patients in whom the TAVI procedure was performed between 2017 and 2019 (transcarotid TAVI, n = 33; transfemoral TAVI, n = 232). Preoperative characteristics, procedural and postprocedural outcomes, as well as 30­day mortality were assessed. RESULTS: Compared with the transfemoral TAVI group,patients undergoing transcarotid TAVI presented with a higher New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class (median [interquartile range (IQR)], 3 [3-3] vs 2 [2-3]; P <0.001), a higher surgical risk (median [IQR] EuroSCORE II, 6 [4.8-10.7] vs 4.8 [2.8-7.9]; P = 0.003), and a higher incidence of peripheral artery disease (36.4% vs 18.1%; P = 0.035). The median (IQR) procedure duration in the transcarotid TAVI group was shorter than in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI (65 [60-80] min vs 90 [80-110] min; P <0.001, respectively). In both study groups, we noted a high percentage of procedural success (transcarotid vs transfemoral TAVI, 96.9% vs 97.2%; P = 0.66). We found no significant differences between transcarotid TAVI and transfemoral TAVI in terms of periprocedural and 30­day mortality as well as the number of strokes. Regardless of the access route chosen, echocardiographic parameters and the NYHA class similarly improved compared with preprocedural data. CONCLUSIONS: Despite posing a higher baseline risk and presenting a greater anatomic complexity, transcarotid access is safe and associated with 30­day outcomes similar to those observed for transfemoral access. Importantly, procedural time was short and no periprocedural strokes or vascular complications were reported.

Restrictive Mitral Annuloplasty Does Not Limit Exercise Capacity.

BACKGROUND: Restrictive mitral annuloplasty is the preferred method of treating secondary mitral regurgitation. The use of small annuloplasty rings to reduce the high recurrence rates may result in mitral stenosis. METHODS: Thirty-six patients who underwent restrictive mitral annuloplasty with Carpentier-Edwards classic 26 size ring underwent exercise echocardiography and ergospirometry. Resting catecholamines and N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels were measured. RESULTS: At the time of study, the median time from operation was 16.6 months (interquartile range, 8.5 to 43.3 months). Left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) was 67 mL/m(2) (interquartile range, 25 to 92 mL/m(2)), and ejection fraction (EF) was 38.8% (interquartile range, 28.3% to 59.0%). Mitral gradients were higher at the leaflet tips than at the annular level. Continuous wave (CW) Doppler gradients at rest were 3.4 mmHg (interquartile range, 2.4 to 4.9 mmHg) mean and 9.5 mmHg (interquartile range, 7.0 to 14.7 mmHg) maximal. On exertion, they increased to 6.8 mmHg (interquartile range, 5.4 to 8.8 mmHg) (p = 0.001) and 19.7 mmHg (interquartile range, 12.8 to 23.3 mmHg) (p = 0.001), respectively. Maximal VO2 was 18.2 mL/kg/min (interquartile range, 16.3 to 21.5 mL/kg/min), VE/VCO2 slope was 31.1 (interquartile range, 26 to 34). Epinephrine level was 0.024 ng/mL (interquartile range, 0.0098 to 0.043 ng/mL), norepinephrine was 0.61 ng/mL (interquartile range, 0.41 to 0.95 ng/mL), and NT-proBNP was 303 pg/mL (interquartile range, 155 to 553 pg/mL). Maximal VO2 negatively correlated with resting norepinephrine level (r = -0.50, p = 0.003). VE/VCO2 slope positively correlated with NT-proBNP (r = 0.36, p = 0.004) and epinephrine (r = 0.36, p = 0.04) levels and with LV volumes (r = 0.51, p = 0.006) and was negatively correlated with LVEF (r = -0.52, p = 0.004). Neither maximal VO2 nor VE/VCO2 slope correlated with the highest mean (r = 0.24, p = 0.2, and r = -0.20, p = 0.3, respectively) and maximal (r = 0.13, p = 0.5, r = -0.20, p = 0.3, respectively) mitral gradients on exertion. CONCLUSIONS: Restrictive mitral annuloplasty for secondary mitral regurgitation does result in a degree of mitral stenosis; however, primary heart disease seems more important for patient's exercise performance than the mitral stenosis resulting from using an undersized ring.