Prophylactic Retrograde Distal Common Femoral Access as a Bail-out Strategy in Patients with Increased Risk for Femoral Access Complication During Transfemoral Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVE

Several patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have complex peripheral arterial disease (PAD) that increases risk of vascular complications and failure of vascular closure device (VCD). Endovascular bailout of failed VCD is performed through contralateral femoral access. Further due to multiple different anatomic reasons the contralateral femoral access and "up and over" approach is unavailable for endovascular bailout of the VCD failure. We evaluated a novel bailout technique of obtaining an additional access in ipsilateral common femoral artery (CFA) or superficial femoral artery (SFA) distal to the main CFA access used for TAVR device.

METHODS

We prospectively identified patients who were at high risk for VCD failure and had unavailable contralateral CFA approach from the pre-TAVR evaluation with multislice CT angiography. The data was collected prospectively for the TVT registry and retrospectively reviewed. All patients had an additional distal access obtained in the CFA or proximal SFA under direct fluoroscopy guidance after achieving main CFA access for TAVR. Using an inner 0.021″ micro-dilator from the 4-Fr micropuncture mini stick max access kit (AngioDynamics, Marlborough, MA) and a 200 cm long 0.018″ wire, the distal access was secured in place through the TAVR procedure. After completing the TAVR if the VCD gained successful hemostasis, the 0.021″ dilator was removed with manual pressure. If the VCD failed to achieve hemostasis, the distal access was upsized to a 7 Fr sheath for carrying out endovascular repair of the TAVR access. If the distal access was upsized to 7 Fr, that access was treated with VCD. The patients were monitored for acute in-hospital complication and followed for 6 months.

RESULTS

During 2017 & 2018, 97.4% of 186 TAVRs were performed via femoral approach at our center. Six patients met the criteria for high-risk access and non-availability of the contralateral "up and over" approach. Of the 6 patients enrolled in this prospective study, 3 required endovascular management of TAVR access because of failed VCDs and were treated with covered stents using the distal ipsilateral access. The remaining 3 patients had successful use of VCDs for the TAVR access and the prophylactic access with 0.021″ dilator was managed with manual pressure. None of the six patients suffered any further vascular complication or bleeding. At the 6-month follow up no vascular complications or clinically driven events were identified from the TAVR access or additional distal ipsilateral access.

CONCLUSION

This novel technique of prophylactic ipsilateral distal femoral access can provide an alternative bailout strategy for patients at high risk of closure device failure and unavailable contralateral femoral approach during transfemoral TAVR.