AIMS: Empirically, transfemoral (TF) approach is the first choice for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We aimed to investigate whether transubclavian (TSc) and TF approaches present comparable major outcomes according to current evidence. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane database for studies with symptomatic aortic stenosis patients who underwent TAVI through TF or TSc/axillary access from January/2006 to January/2017. Searched terms were: ("aortic stenosis" OR "transcatheter aortic" OR "TAVI" OR "TAVR") and ("transfemoral" OR "transaxillary" OR "transubclavian"). Major outcomes according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria were gathered. The odds ratio (OR) was used as a summary statistic. A random-effects model was used. A fully percutaneous TSc TAVI case from our institution illustrates minimalist approach. RESULTS: Final analysis was made with six studies including 4,504 patients (3,886 TF and 618 TSc). Baseline characteristics of compared groups in individual studies were similar, with the exception of a higher logistic EuroSCORE in the TSc group (23.7 ± 1.92 vs. 21.17 ± 3.51, P = 0.04) and higher prevalence of coronary and peripheral artery disease with OR = 0.67 [95% CI: 0.54-0.83] (P = 0.0003) and OR = 0.08 [95% CI: 0.05-0.12] (P < 0.00001), respectively. TSc group presented comparable 30-day mortality (OR = 1.37; [95%CI: 0.85-2.21]; P = 0.20). There were no differences for procedural success, 30-day stroke rate, need for new pacemaker implantation, major vascular complications, and acute kidney injury requiring dialysis. Also, no differences were found concerning 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that TSc approach may be, not only an alternative route to TF approach for TAVI, but even a competitive one in certain patients with increased risk of femoral injury.
AIMS: Empirically, transfemoral (TF) approach is the first choice for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We aimed to investigate whether transubclavian (TSc) and TF approaches present comparable major outcomes according to current evidence. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane database for studies with symptomatic aortic stenosispatients who underwent TAVI through TF or TSc/axillary access from January/2006 to January/2017. Searched terms were: ("aortic stenosis" OR "transcatheter aortic" OR "TAVI" OR "TAVR") and ("transfemoral" OR "transaxillary" OR "transubclavian"). Major outcomes according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria were gathered. The odds ratio (OR) was used as a summary statistic. A random-effects model was used. A fully percutaneous TSc TAVI case from our institution illustrates minimalist approach. RESULTS: Final analysis was made with six studies including 4,504 patients (3,886 TF and 618 TSc). Baseline characteristics of compared groups in individual studies were similar, with the exception of a higher logistic EuroSCORE in the TSc group (23.7 ± 1.92 vs. 21.17 ± 3.51, P = 0.04) and higher prevalence of coronary and peripheral artery disease with OR = 0.67 [95% CI: 0.54-0.83] (P = 0.0003) and OR = 0.08 [95% CI: 0.05-0.12] (P < 0.00001), respectively. TSc group presented comparable 30-day mortality (OR = 1.37; [95%CI: 0.85-2.21]; P = 0.20). There were no differences for procedural success, 30-day stroke rate, need for new pacemaker implantation, major vascular complications, and acute kidney injury requiring dialysis. Also, no differences were found concerning 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that TSc approach may be, not only an alternative route to TF approach for TAVI, but even a competitive one in certain patients with increased risk of femoral injury.