Comparison of the short-term safety and efficacy of transcarotid and transfemoral access routes for transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND

Transfemoral access is the preferred approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), as it is characterized by the lowest complication rate. In the majority of patients ineligible for transfemoral access, the transcarotid approach can be used.

AIMS

This study aimed to compare short‑term outcomes in 2 groups of patients treated with transcarotid or transfemoral TAVI.

METHODS

A retrospective comparison included 265 patients in whom the TAVI procedure was performed between 2017 and 2019 (transcarotid TAVI, n = 33; transfemoral TAVI, n = 232). Preoperative characteristics, procedural and postprocedural outcomes, as well as 30‑day mortality were assessed.

RESULTS

Compared with the transfemoral TAVI group,patients undergoing transcarotid TAVI presented with a higher New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class (median [interquartile range (IQR)], 3 [3-3] vs 2 [2-3]; P <0.001), a higher surgical risk (median [IQR] EuroSCORE II, 6 [4.8-10.7] vs 4.8 [2.8-7.9]; P = 0.003), and a higher incidence of peripheral artery disease (36.4% vs 18.1%; P = 0.035). The median (IQR) procedure duration in the transcarotid TAVI group was shorter than in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI (65 [60-80] min vs 90 [80-110] min; P <0.001, respectively). In both study groups, we noted a high percentage of procedural success (transcarotid vs transfemoral TAVI, 96.9% vs 97.2%; P = 0.66). We found no significant differences between transcarotid TAVI and transfemoral TAVI in terms of periprocedural and 30‑day mortality as well as the number of strokes. Regardless of the access route chosen, echocardiographic parameters and the NYHA class similarly improved compared with preprocedural data.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite posing a higher baseline risk and presenting a greater anatomic complexity, transcarotid access is safe and associated with 30‑day outcomes similar to those observed for transfemoral access. Importantly, procedural time was short and no periprocedural strokes or vascular complications were reported.