Key result
Transcarotid TAVI demonstrated a similar procedural success rate compared to transapical TAVI (98.0% vs 98.1%) in patients with severe aortic stenosis and contraindications for transfemoral access.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to compare the safety and clinical outcomes of transcarotid versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients for whom the transfemoral approach was not feasible.
Does transcarotid TAVI improve safety and clinical outcomes compared to transapical TAVI in patients with severe aortic stenosis and contraindications for transfemoral access?
Cohort (n=102)
Yes
Does transcarotid TAVI improve safety and clinical outcomes compared to transapical TAVI in patients with severe aortic stenosis and contraindications for transfemoral access?
Absolute Event Rate: 98% vs 98.1%
p-value: p=0.95
Transcarotid TAVI offers similar procedural success and 30-day mortality to transapical TAVI, with potentially fewer complications such as pneumonia and blood transfusions.
Similar short-term outcomes support TC-TAVI as alternative to TA-TAVI; leaves open whether it improves safety in higher-risk patients.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and clinical outcomes of transcarotid (TC) and transapical access (TA) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) patients whom the transfemoral approach (TF) was not feasible. METHODS: The analysis included consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis treated from 2017 to 2020 with TC-TAVI or TA-TAVI in two high-volume TAVI centers. The approach was selected by multidisciplinary heart teams after analyzing multislice computed tomography of the heart, aorta and peripheral arteries, transthoracic echocardiography and coronary angiography. RESULTS: One hundred and two patients were treated with alternative TAVI accesses (TC; n = 49 and TA; n = 53) in our centers. The groups were similar regarding age, gender, New York Heart Association class, and echocardiography parameters. Patients treated with TC-TAVI had significantly higher surgical risk. The procedural success rate was similar in both groups (TC-TAVI 98%; TA-TAVI 98.1%; p = 0.95). The rate of Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 defined clinical events was low in both groups. The percentage of new-onset rhythm disturbances and permanent pacemaker implantation was similar in TC and TA TAVI (4.1% vs. 11.3%; p = 0.17 and 10.2% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.39, respectively). In the TA-TAVI group, significantly more cases of pneumonia and blood transfusions were observed (11% vs. 0%; p = 0.01 and 30.2% vs. 12.2%; p = 0.03). The 30-day mortality was similar in TC and TA groups (4.1% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.71, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Both TC and TA TAVI are safe procedures in appropriately selected patients and are associated with a low risk of complications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hudziak et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Severe symptomatic aortic stenosis with contraindications for transfemoral access (n=102). Transcarotid TAVI vs. Transapical TAVI was evaluated on Procedural success (p=0.95). Transcarotid TAVI demonstrated a similar procedural success rate compared to transapical TAVI (98.0% vs 98.1%) in patients with severe aortic stenosis and contraindications for transfemoral access.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: