Abdelnour Mark W, Patel Vishal, Patel Pranav M, Kasel A M, Frangieh Antonio H
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange, California, CA, United States.
Department of Cardiology, University Heart Center, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2024 Aug 8;11:1437626. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2024.1437626. eCollection 2024.
Aortic Stenosis (AS) is a common condition with an estimated pooled prevalence of all AS in the elderly population at around 12.4%, with that of severe AS estimated to be around 3.4%. In the past, surgical aortic valve replacement was the primary treatment option for severe AS for decades. However, with the compelling evidence on the safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), it has become the gold standard treatment option for many patients with symptomatic severe AS. Transfemoral access has been the preferred method for transcatheter heart valve delivery. However, the prevalent use of TAVR on a diverse patient profile with different risk factors, such as peripheral artery disease, precluded the possibility of a transfemoral approach despite the improvement of valves and delivery systems technology. Therefore, alternative TAVR approaches have gained increasing utility in cases where transfemoral access is unfavorable. We review the journey, evolution, and techniques for different approaches of percutaneous TAVR, including transfemoral, transcarotid, transsubclavian/transaxillary, and transcaval approaches, in addition to the traditional "surgical" transaortic and transapical accesses. Consolidating these data highlights each approach's practicality and limitations, providing additional grounding for case-by-case utilization and future clinical research.
主动脉瓣狭窄(AS)是一种常见病症,据估计,老年人群中所有AS的合并患病率约为12.4%,重度AS的患病率估计约为3.4%。过去几十年来,外科主动脉瓣置换术一直是重度AS的主要治疗选择。然而,鉴于经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)安全性和有效性的确凿证据,它已成为许多有症状重度AS患者的金标准治疗选择。经股动脉途径一直是经导管心脏瓣膜输送的首选方法。然而,尽管瓣膜和输送系统技术有所改进,但TAVR在具有不同风险因素(如外周动脉疾病)的不同患者群体中的广泛应用,排除了经股动脉途径的可能性。因此,在经股动脉途径不可行的情况下,替代性TAVR途径的应用越来越广泛。我们回顾了经皮TAVR不同途径的发展历程、演变及技术,包括经股动脉、经颈动脉、经锁骨下动脉/经腋动脉以及经腔静脉途径,此外还包括传统的“外科”经主动脉和经心尖途径。整合这些数据突出了每种途径的实用性和局限性,为逐例应用及未来临床研究提供了更多依据。