Comparison of Alternative Peripheral and Transfemoral Approaches for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta‐Analysis of Propensity‐Matched Studies

Background . Transfemoral (TF) access is the gold standard for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Alternative peripheral (AP) artery access such as the carotid or axillary artery is considered when the feasibility of femoral access is in doubt. The outcomes comparison of these 2 approaches is unclear due to limited sample sizes in prior studies. Our aim is to compare the clinical outcomes of TF‐ and AP‐TAVR by conducting a meta‐analysis of propensity‐matched studies. Methods . The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from inception up to and including February 2022 were searched by 3 separate researchers to identify articles reporting propensity‐matched, comparative data on TF vs. AP‐TAVR. Clinical outcomes were extracted from the articles and pooled for analysis. Results . Seven prior studies, including 9,004 patients, were included in our study, with 6,729 in the TF group and 2,275 in the AP group. In all studies, the baseline characteristics of the patients were highly propensity‐matched with the full Newcastle‐Ottawa scale. Meta‐analysis revealed higher in‐hospital/30‐day mortality (3.3% vs. 4.4%; OR 0.69; 95% CI (0.51, 0.94); P = 0.02) as well as the incidence of stroke (1.9% vs. 3.5%; OR 0.60; 95% CI (0.43, 0.84); P = 0.003) for the AP group. There were no significant differences in the incidence of major vascular complications, pacemaker implantation, bleeding, or acute kidney injury. Conclusions . Our meta‐analysis of propensity‐matched studies showed AP‐TAVR contains an additional 1.1% risk of early mortality and an additional 1.6% risk of stroke compared to TF‐TAVR. These risks should be considered when deciding on access.