Peripheral access for alternative access TAVR was associated with lower 1-year mortality (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.62-0.85) but higher stroke risk compared with central access.
Cohort (n=7,187)
Yes
Does peripheral access TAVR improve mortality and stroke compared to central access TAVR in patients requiring alternative access?
Peripheral access for alternative access TAVR is associated with lower mortality but higher stroke risk compared to central access.
Hazard Ratio: 0.72 (95% CI 0.62–0.85)
Absolute Event Rate: 20.3% vs 26.6%
p-value: p=<0.001
Background: In some patients, the alternative access route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is utilized because the conventional transfemoral approach is not felt to be either feasible or optimal. However, accurate prognostication of patient risks is not well established. This study examines the associations between peripheral (transsubclavian/transaxillary, and transcarotid) versus central access (transapical and transaortic) in alternative access TAVR and 30-day and 1-year end points of mortality and stroke for all valve platforms. Methods: Using data from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry with linkage to Medicare claims, patients who underwent alternative access TAVR from June 1, 2015 to June 30, 2018 were identified. Adjusted and unadjusted Cox proportional hazards modeling were performed to determine the association between alternate access TAVR site and 30-day and 1-year end points of mortality and stroke. Results: Of 7187 alternative access TAVR patients, 3725 (52%) had peripheral access and 3462 (48%) had central access. All-cause mortality was significantly lower in peripheral access versus central access group at in-hospital and 1 year (2.9% versus 6.3% and 20.3% versus 26.6%, respectively), but stroke rates were higher (5.0% versus 2.8% and 7.3% versus 5.5%, respectively; all P <0.001). These results persisted after 1-year adjustment (death adjusted hazard ratio, 0.72 95% CI, 0.62–0.85 and stroke adjusted hazard ratio, 2.92 95% CI, 2.21–3.85). When broken down by individual subtypes, compared with transaxillary/subclavian access patients, transapical, and transaortic access patients had higher all-cause mortality but less stroke ( P <0.05). Conclusions: In this real-world, contemporary, nationally representative benchmarking study of alternate access TAVR sites, peripheral access was associated with favorable mortality and morbidity outcomes compared with central access, at the expense of higher stroke. These findings may allow for accurate prognostication of risk for patient counseling and decision-making for the heart team with regard to alternative access TAVR.
Kaneko et al. (Thu,) conducted a cohort in Alternative access transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (n=7,187). Peripheral access (transsubclavian/transaxillary, and transcarotid) vs. Central access (transapical and transaortic) was evaluated on 1-year all-cause mortality (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62-0.85, p=<0.001). Peripheral access for alternative access TAVR was associated with lower 1-year mortality (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.62-0.85) but higher stroke risk compared with central access.