Trans‐subclavian versus transapical access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A multicenter study

OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes of trans-subclavian (TS) and transapical (TA) access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). BACKGROUND: A considerable proportion of patients undergoing TAVI are not eligible for transfemoral approach. To date, there are few data to guide the choice between alternative vascular access routes. METHODS: Among 874 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI, 202 procedures were performed through TA (n = 142, 70.3%) or TS (n = 60, 29.7%) access. Medtronic Corevalve (CV, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) was implanted in 17.3% of the patients, the Edwards-Sapien (ES, Edwards Lifesciences Inc., Irvine, CA) in 81.2% and other prostheses in 0.1%. In-hospital and long-term outcome were assessed using the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 definitions. RESULTS: Mean age was 82 ± 6 years, STS score 9.3 ± 7.9%. The 2 groups showed a relevant imbalance in baseline characteristics. In hospital mortality was 6.4% (1.7% TS vs. 8.4% TA, P = 0.06), stroke 2.0%, acute myocardial infarction 1.0%, acute kidney injury 39.4%, sepsis 4.0% with no significant differences between groups, while bleeding was more frequent in TA patients (53.5% vs. 11.7% TS, P < 0.001). One- and 2-year survival was 85.2% and 73.2% in TS patients, and 83.9% and 74.9% in TA patients (P = ns for both). Access site was not an independent predictor of mortality at multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: Transapical compared with trans-subclavian access for TAVI was associated with a nonsignificant trend to increased periprocedural events. However, 1- and 2-year survival appears similar.