Key result
Transcaval access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement showed no statistically significant difference in 30-day all-cause mortality compared to alternative access routes (RR 0.11).
Why the study?
When standard transfemoral access is contraindicated for TAVR, alternative access routes are emerging, but the safety of the transcaval approach remained uncertain.
Does transcaval access for TAVR maintain safety and reduce mortality compared to alternative non-femoral access routes in patients with severe aortic stenosis contraindicated for transfemoral access?
Meta-Analysis (n=1,003)
Does transcaval access for TAVR maintain safety and reduce mortality compared to alternative non-femoral access routes in patients with severe aortic stenosis contraindicated for transfemoral access?
Relative Risk: 0.11 (95% CI -0.48–0.7)
p-value: p=0.71
Transcaval access for TAVR is a safe and feasible alternative with comparable mortality to other non-femoral access routes in patients who are contraindicated for transfemoral access.
Transcaval access appears safe when transfemoral is contraindicated; extends limited observational data on alternative TAVR routes.
Background: Transfemoral access is considered the standard route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, in some cases, this access route is contraindicated. Alternative access routes, such as transaxillary, are emerging as first-line approaches to address these limitations, while the transcaval approach remains uncertain. Our Meta-analysis aims to evaluate the safety of the transcaval approach compared to other access routes for TAVR. Methods: We searched five databases, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase, from inception until April 2024 for any study that reports transcaval access alone or compares it to any alternative access in TAVR patients. We used Risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and Mean Difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with a 95% confidence interval. Results: Eleven studies with 1003 patients were included, transcaval showed non-statistically significant difference over alternatives in terms of intra-hospital, 30 days, and long-term all-cause mortality with a RR of 0.08 (95% CI −0.83 to 0.99, P = 0.86), 0.11 (95% CI −0.48 to 0.7, P = 0.71), and 1.08 (95% CI −0.50 to 2.66, P = 0.18), respectively. Furthermore, in our single-arm analysis, transcaval access has a low pooled 30-day all-cause mortality rate of 7% (95% CI 5–10) and long-term mortality of 21% (95% CI 2–77). The mean difference in length of stay in the hospital after the operation was 4.88 (95% CI 4.45–5.31), and the major bleeding rate was 14% (95% CI 8–23). Conclusion: Transcaval access for TAVR is a safe and feasible method that can be considered a new alternative when trans-femoral access is contraindicated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Otmani et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (n=1,003). Transcaval access for TAVR vs. Alternative access routes was evaluated on 30-day all-cause mortality (RR 0.11, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.7, p=0.71). Transcaval access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement showed no statistically significant difference in 30-day all-cause mortality compared to alternative access routes (RR 0.11).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: