Mostafa R Amer1, Wassim Mosleh1, Saurabh Joshi1, Jeffery F Mather2, Wael El-Mallah2, Mohiuddin Cheema3, Raymond G McKay4. 1. Division of Cardiology, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut. 2. Division of Interventional Cardiology, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut. 3. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut. 4. Division of Interventional Cardiology, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut. Electronic address: raymond.mckay@hhchealth.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous reports described successful use of transcarotid and transsubclavian approaches for the performance of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis who cannot be treated with transfemoral access. The purpose of the present study was to compare these two alternative approaches with respect to safety, efficacy, and procedural efficiency. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all TAVR procedures performed through either a transcarotid or a transsubclavian approach at a single tertiary care medical center between January 2016 and October 2018 was performed. Outcomes are reported in accordance with the Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions. RESULTS: During the study period, 33 patients had transcarotid TAVR and 38 patients had transsubclavian TAVR. Transcarotid patients were older (mean age, 82.9 ± 7.2 vs 78.1 ± 8.2 years; P = .012), but otherwise the two groups were not significantly different with respect to preoperative characteristics. Valve deployment was similar between the groups (100% vs 97%; P = .348). Procedure time was shorter with the transcarotid approach (110 ± 32 vs 134 ± 45 minutes; P = .014). There was a lower mean fluoroscopy air kerma in the transcarotid group (682.82 ± 713.48 mGy vs 2141 ± 2055 mGy; P < .001), although fluoroscopy dose-area product did not differ between the groups. There was no difference between the groups with respect to in-hospital or 30-day mortality (0% vs 3%; P = .355), stroke (3% vs 8%; P = .393), or vascular complication (3% vs 4%; P = .840). CONCLUSIONS: The transcarotid and the transsubclavian approaches have similar safety and efficacy outcomes. The transcarotid approach had a shorter procedure duration and a trend toward lower fluoroscopy duration and radiation exposure.
BACKGROUND: Previous reports described successful use of transcarotid and transsubclavian approaches for the performance of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis who cannot be treated with transfemoral access. The purpose of the present study was to compare these two alternative approaches with respect to safety, efficacy, and procedural efficiency. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all TAVR procedures performed through either a transcarotid or a transsubclavian approach at a single tertiary care medical center between January 2016 and October 2018 was performed. Outcomes are reported in accordance with the Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions. RESULTS: During the study period, 33 patients had transcarotid TAVR and 38 patients had transsubclavian TAVR. Transcarotid patients were older (mean age, 82.9 ± 7.2 vs 78.1 ± 8.2 years; P = .012), but otherwise the two groups were not significantly different with respect to preoperative characteristics. Valve deployment was similar between the groups (100% vs 97%; P = .348). Procedure time was shorter with the transcarotid approach (110 ± 32 vs 134 ± 45 minutes; P = .014). There was a lower mean fluoroscopy air kerma in the transcarotid group (682.82 ± 713.48 mGy vs 2141 ± 2055 mGy; P < .001), although fluoroscopy dose-area product did not differ between the groups. There was no difference between the groups with respect to in-hospital or 30-day mortality (0% vs 3%; P = .355), stroke (3% vs 8%; P = .393), or vascular complication (3% vs 4%; P = .840). CONCLUSIONS: The transcarotid and the transsubclavian approaches have similar safety and efficacy outcomes. The transcarotid approach had a shorter procedure duration and a trend toward lower fluoroscopy duration and radiation exposure.
Authors: Alberto Alperi; Angela McInerney; Thomas Modine; Chekrallah Chamandi; Jose D Tafur-Soto; Marco Barbanti; Diego Lopez; Francisco Campelo-Parada; Asim N Cheema; Stefan Toggweiler; Francesco Saia; Ignacio Amat-Santos; Juan F Oteo; Viçent Serra; Maciej Dabrowski; Ramzi Abi-Akar; Natalia Giraldo Echavarria; Roberto Valvo; Javier Lopez-Pais; Anthony Matta; Mobeena Arif; Federico Moccetti; Miriam Compagnone; Siamak Mohammadi; Luis Nombela-Franco; Josep Rodés-Cabau Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg Date: 2022-06-01