![Sample our Bioscience journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5925/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Bioscience.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Background: To compare outcomes among transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) performed via transaortic (TAo) and subclavian (SCL) approaches. Many patients are not amenable for TAVR via the transfemoral route due to peripheral vascular disease. Limited data exist regarding safety and procedural feasibility of TAVR via TAo and SCL routes.
Methods: Single-center study comparing patients treated with CoreValve® and Sapien XT® from May 2013 to August 2015 via subclavian (SCL) or transaortic (TAo) approach. All patients were deemed inappropriate for transfemoral access. Baseline characteristics, procedural feasibility, and outcomes were compared.
Results: A total of 27 (53%) patients underwent TAVR via the TAo approach and 24 (47%) via the SCL approach. Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk scores and patient age were similar: 11.33 versus 8.66; p = 0.13 and 84.7 years versus 82.6 years; p = 0.3, respectively. All patients in the SCL group received self-expandable valves. Overall vascular complications were low in both groups (SCL = 4.2% vs. TAo = 3.7%). Length of hospital stay was marginally longer in the TAo group (mean 7.25 vs. 6.2 days, p = 0.119). There was a trend towards increased mortality associated with TA access (11.1% vs. 4%, p = 0.36) at 30 days that was significant after 12 months (33.3% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.03).
Conclusion: Our data shows a relatively low incidence of complications and comparable outcomes in these two groups. SCL or TAo access can be utilized as alternatives in patients with prohibitive ileofemoral anatomy, however, based on our limited data, subclavian access with self-expanding valves offers better outcomes.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.