Pablo Codner1, Daniel Pugliese2, Rémi Kouz2, Amisha Patel2, Cheng-Han Chen2, Juan Terre2, Kyle W Eudailey3, Tamim Nazif2, Torsten P Vahl2, Isaac George4, Omar K Khalique2, Rebecca T Hahn2, Martin B Leon2, Susheel Kodali2, Michael Borger3. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Sub-division of Interventional Cardiology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York; Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, and Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. Electronic address: drpablocodner@gmail.com. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Sub-division of Interventional Cardiology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York. 3. Department of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York. 4. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Sub-division of Interventional Cardiology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York; Department of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) provides therapy for patients with severe aortic stenosis at extreme, high, or intermediate surgical risk. Transfemoral access has been the preferred access route; however, this approach is not suitable for many TAVR candidates. A suprasternal approach may allow for earlier ambulation and shorter hospital stay as compared with other, nontransfemoral approaches. METHODS: A total of 11 patients with unsuitable transfemoral access underwent suprasternal TAVR. Propensity matching was used to compare suprasternal patients to patients undergoing transaortic, transapical, and trans-subclavian TAVR. RESULTS: Groups were well matched for baseline characteristics. A self-expanding valve device was used in 6 (54.5%) and a balloon-expandable valve in 5 (45.5%) of the 11 patients treated by the suprasternal route. Suprasternal and trans-subclavian patients were able to ambulate earlier than patients treated by the transaortic route, a median 1.6 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.9 to 1.8), 1.6 days (IQR: 0.9 to 2.7), and 3.9 days (IQR: 1.9 to 4.5) after the procedure for suprasternal, trans-subclavian, and transaortic patients, respectively (p = 0.001). Length of hospitalization was shorter for patients treated by suprasternal or trans-subclavian access in comparison with patients treated by the transaortic or transapical approach: median 4 days (IQR: 3 to 8) and 4 days (IQR: 4 to 8) versus 8 days (IQR: 6 to 14) and 6 days (IQR: 7 to 11) for suprasternal and trans-subclavian versus transaortic and transapical, respectively (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Suprasternal and trans-subclavian access are associated with earlier ambulation and shorter hospitalization than other nontransfemoral TAVR routes, without an increase in complications. Further study is required to determine if suprasternal is the alternative access of choice for TAVR patients with poor transfemoral vasculature.
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) provides therapy for patients with severe aortic stenosis at extreme, high, or intermediate surgical risk. Transfemoral access has been the preferred access route; however, this approach is not suitable for many TAVR candidates. A suprasternal approach may allow for earlier ambulation and shorter hospital stay as compared with other, nontransfemoral approaches. METHODS: A total of 11 patients with unsuitable transfemoral access underwent suprasternal TAVR. Propensity matching was used to compare suprasternal patients to patients undergoing transaortic, transapical, and trans-subclavian TAVR. RESULTS: Groups were well matched for baseline characteristics. A self-expanding valve device was used in 6 (54.5%) and a balloon-expandable valve in 5 (45.5%) of the 11 patients treated by the suprasternal route. Suprasternal and trans-subclavian patients were able to ambulate earlier than patients treated by the transaortic route, a median 1.6 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.9 to 1.8), 1.6 days (IQR: 0.9 to 2.7), and 3.9 days (IQR: 1.9 to 4.5) after the procedure for suprasternal, trans-subclavian, and transaortic patients, respectively (p = 0.001). Length of hospitalization was shorter for patients treated by suprasternal or trans-subclavian access in comparison with patients treated by the transaortic or transapical approach: median 4 days (IQR: 3 to 8) and 4 days (IQR: 4 to 8) versus 8 days (IQR: 6 to 14) and 6 days (IQR: 7 to 11) for suprasternal and trans-subclavian versus transaortic and transapical, respectively (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Suprasternal and trans-subclavian access are associated with earlier ambulation and shorter hospitalization than other nontransfemoral TAVR routes, without an increase in complications. Further study is required to determine if suprasternal is the alternative access of choice for TAVR patients with poor transfemoral vasculature.