Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Access Options for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Unfavorable Aortoiliofemoral Anatomy

  • Valvular Heart Disease (A Wang, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Cardiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the current era, 10–15 % of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-eligible high and prohibitive risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis are not candidates for transfemoral arterial access. Knowledge of the various alternative access options can enable TAVR teams to provide improved quality of life and potentially life-saving treatment for a group of patients who otherwise have no viable options. In this article, we review approach to patients with unfavorable femoral arterial anatomy and provide an in-depth discussion on the various alternative routes for TAVR.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Dewey TM, Walther T, Doss M, et al. Transapical aortic valve implantation: an animal feasibility study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;82:110–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Blackstone EH, Suri RM, Rajeswaran J, et al. Propensity-matched comparisons of clinical outcomes after transapical or transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a placement of aortic transcatheter valves (PARTNER)-I trial substudy. Circulation. 2015;131:1989–2000. Compared TA with TF approach and found a higher liklihood of adverse periprocedural events and prolonged recovery with TA approach. Stroke risk was equivalent with both approaches.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Makkar RR, Fontana GP, Jilaihawi H, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement for inoperable severe aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1696–704.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kapadia SR, Leon MB, Makkar RR, et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with standard treatment for patients with inoperable aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385:2485–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1597–607.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kapadia SR, Tuzcu EM, Makkar RR, et al. Long-term outcomes of inoperable patients with aortic stenosis randomly assigned to transcatheter aortic valve replacement or standard therapy. Circulation. 2014;130:1483–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1609–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Webb JG, Doshi D, Mack MJ, et al. A Randomized Evaluation of the SAPIEN XT Transcatheter Heart Valve System in Patients With Aortic Stenosis Who Are Not Candidates for Surgery. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:1797–806.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kodali SK, O’Neill WW, Moses JW, et al. Early and late (one year) outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis (from the United States REVIVAL trial). Am J Cardiol. 2011;107:1058–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Aguirre J, Waskowski R, Poddar K, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: experience with the transapical approach, alternate access sites, and concomitant cardiac repairs. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148:1417–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Al Kindi AH, Salhab KF, Roselli EE, Kapadia S, Tuzcu EM, Svensson LG. Alternative access options for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with no conventional access and chest pathology. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147:644–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Svensson LG, Dewey T, Kapadia S, et al. United States feasibility study of transcatheter insertion of a stented aortic valve by the left ventricular apex. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;86:46–54. discussion 54-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Svensson LG, Blackstone EH, Rajeswaran J, et al. Comprehensive analysis of mortality among patients undergoing TAVR: results of the PARTNER trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:158–68. Demonstrated an elevated periprocedural risk associated with TA approach over TF approach.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Thourani VH, Kodali S, Makkar RR, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: a propensity score analysis. Lancet. 2016.

  15. Kodali S, Thourani VH, White J, et al. Early clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve replacement in inoperable, high-risk and intermediate-risk patients with aortic stenosis. Eur Heart J. 2016.

  16. Ducrocq G, Francis F, Serfaty JM, et al. Vascular complications of transfemoral aortic valve implantation with the Edwards SAPIEN prosthesis: incidence and impact on outcome. EuroIntervention. 2010;5:666–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Krishnaswamy A, Parashar A, Agarwal S, et al. Predicting vascular complications during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement using computed tomography: a novel area-based index. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;84:844–51. Found that a sheath to femoral artery diameter and area ratios predict vascular complications in patients undergoing TF TAVR.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ziegelmueller JA, Lange R, Bleiziffer S. Access and closure of the left ventricular apex: state of play. J Thorac Dis. 2015;7:1548–55.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Kodali SK, Williams MR, Smith CR, et al. Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1686–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mack MJ, Leon MB, Smith CR, et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385:2477–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Thourani VH, Jensen HA, Babaliaros V, et al. Outcomes in Nonagenarians Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the PARTNER-I Trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100:785–92. discussion 793.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Williams M, Kodali SK, Hahn RT, et al. Sex-related differences in outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis: insights from the PARTNER Trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:1522–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Thourani VH, Jensen HA, Babaliaros V, et al. Transapical and Transaortic Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the United States. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100:1718–26. discussion 1726-7. Found no difference in mortality or stroke between TA and DA access.

  24. Thomas M, Schymik G, Walther T, et al. Thirty-day results of the SAPIEN aortic Bioprosthesis European Outcome (SOURCE) Registry: a European registry of transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the Edwards SAPIEN valve. Circulation. 2010;122:62–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Webb JG, Altwegg L, Boone RH, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: impact on clinical and valve-related outcomes. Circulation. 2009;119:3009–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Himbert D, Descoutures F, Al-Attar N, et al. Results of transfemoral or transapical aortic valve implantation following a uniform assessment in high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:303–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2187–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ewe SH, Delgado V, Ng AC, et al. Outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: transfemoral versus transapical approach. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92:1244–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Genereux P, Cohen DJ, Williams MR, et al. Bleeding complications after surgical aortic valve replacement compared with transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insights from the PARTNER I Trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:1100–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kodali S, Williams MR, Doshi D, et al. Sex-specific differences at presentation and outcomes among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:377–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lefevre T, Kappetein AP, Wolner E, et al. One year follow-up of the multi-centre European PARTNER transcatheter heart valve study. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:148–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gada H, Kirtane AJ, Wang K, et al. Temporal trends in quality of life outcomes after transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve (PARTNER) Trial Substudy. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8:338–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Rahnavardi M, Santibanez J, Sian K, Yan TD. A systematic review of transapical aortic valve implantation. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;1:116–28. Systematic review of the TA approach demonstrating safety and efficacy.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Walther T, Simon P, Dewey T, et al. Transapical minimally invasive aortic valve implantation: multicenter experience. Circulation. 2007;116:I240–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rodes-Cabau J, Webb JG, Cheung A, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis in patients at very high or prohibitive surgical risk: acute and late outcomes of the multicenter Canadian experience. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:1080–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Walther T, Thielmann M, Kempfert J, et al. PREVAIL TRANSAPICAL: multicentre trial of transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the newly designed bioprosthesis (SAPIEN-XT) and delivery system (ASCENDRA-II). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;42:278–83. discussion 283.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Walther T, Thielmann M, Kempfert J, et al. One-year multicentre outcomes of transapical aortic valve implantation using the SAPIEN XT valve: the PREVAIL transapical study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;43:986–92. Studied newer generation Sapien XT device delivery system.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Biancari F, Rosato S, D’Errigo P, et al. Immediate and Intermediate Outcome After Transapical Versus Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Am J Cardiol. 2016;117:245–51. Demonstrated higher survival with TF approach over TA approach.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Suri RM, Minha S, Alli O et al. Learning curves for transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the PARTNER-I trial: technical performance, success, and safety. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016. Highlights the existence of a learning curve for TA-TAVR.

  40. Unbehaun A, Pasic M, Drews T, et al. Analysis of survival in 300 high-risk patients up to 2.5 years after transapical aortic valve implantation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92:1315–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ye J, Cheung A, Lichtenstein SV, et al. Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation: follow-up to 3 years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;139:1107-13. 1113 e1.

  42. Kempfert J, Rastan A, Holzhey D, et al. Transapical aortic valve implantation: analysis of risk factors and learning experience in 299 patients. Circulation. 2011;124:S124–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Dewey TM, Bowers B, Thourani VH, et al. Transapical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis: results from the nonrandomized continued access cohort of the PARTNER trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;96:2083–9. Highlights the existence of a learning curve for TA-TAVR.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Eggebrecht H, Schmermund A, Voigtlander T, Kahlert P, Erbel R, Mehta RH. Risk of stroke after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): a meta-analysis of 10,037 published patients. EuroIntervention. 2012;8:129–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Thourani VH, Li C, Devireddy C, et al. High-risk patients with inoperative aortic stenosis: use of transapical, transaortic, and transcarotid techniques. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:817–23. discussion 823-5. Demonstrated excellent outcomes with alternative access TAVR in patients with unfavorable TF access.

  46. Thourani VH, Gunter RL, Neravetla S, et al. Use of transaortic, transapical, and transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement in inoperable patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;96:1349–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Moat NE, Ludman P, de Belder MA, et al. Long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: the U.K. TAVI (United Kingdom Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:2130–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Erdoes G, Basciani R, Huber C, et al. Transcranial Doppler-detected cerebral embolic load during transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;41:778–83. discussion 783-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Rodes-Cabau J, Dumont E, Boone RH, et al. Cerebral embolism following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: comparison of transfemoral and transapical approaches. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:18–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Schafer U, Ho Y, Frerker C, et al. Direct percutaneous access technique for transaxillary transcatheter aortic valve implantation: “the Hamburg Sankt Georg approach”. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:477–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Fraccaro C, Napodano M, Tarantini G, et al. Expanding the eligibility for transcatheter aortic valve implantation the trans-subclavian retrograde approach using: the III generation CoreValve revalving system. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:828–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Adamo M, Fiorina C, Curello S, et al. Role of different vascular approaches on transcatheter aortic valve implantation outcome: a single-center study. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2015;16:279–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Petronio AS, De Carlo M, Bedogni F, et al. Safety and efficacy of the subclavian approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the CoreValve revalving system. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:359–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Petronio AS, De Carlo M, Bedogni F, et al. 2-year results of CoreValve implantation through the subclavian access: a propensity-matched comparison with the femoral access. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:502–7. Provides evidence for subclavian TAVR.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Ciuca C, Tarantini G, Latib A, et al. Trans-subclavian versus transapical access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a multicenter study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;87:332–8. Demonstrated equivalent 1 and 2 year survival rates between subclavian and TA access.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Bapat VN, Attia RQ, Thomas M. Distribution of calcium in the ascending aorta in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation and its relevance to the transaortic approach. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:470–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Okuyama K, Jilaihawi H, Mirocha J, et al. Alternative access for balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement: comparison of the transaortic approach using right anterior thoracotomy to partial J-sternotomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149:789–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Seiffert M, Schnabel R, Conradi L, et al. Predictors and outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation using different approaches according to the valve academic research consortium definitions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82:640–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Ramlawi B, Abu Saleh WK, Jabbari OA, et al. Short-Term Outcomes with Direct Aortic Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. J Heart Valve Dis. 2015;24:426–32. Provides short term data for the direct aortic approach.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Lardizabal JA, O’Neill BP, Desai HV, et al. The transaortic approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: initial clinical experience in the United States. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:2341–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Suri RM, Gulack BC, Brennan JM, et al. Outcomes of Patients With Severe Chronic Lung Disease Who Are Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100:2136–45. discussion 2145-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Azmoun A, Amabile N, Ramadan R, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation through carotid artery access under local anaesthesia. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;46:693–8. discussion 698.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Modine T, Sudre A, Delhaye C, et al. Transcutaneous aortic valve implantation using the left carotid access: feasibility and early clinical outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93:1489–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Mylotte D, Sudre A, Teiger E, et al. Transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement: feasibility and safety. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:472–80. Describes safety and efficacy of transcarotid approach.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Lederman RJ, Babaliaros VC, Greenbaum AB. How to perform transcaval access and closure for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;86:1242–54. Excellent description of technique for transcaval TAVR.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Greenbaum AB, O’Neill WW, Paone G, et al. Caval-aortic access to allow transcatheter aortic valve replacement in otherwise ineligible patients: initial human experience. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:2795–804.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Greenbaum A. Transcaval TAVR: technique, rationale, and complications. Transcatheter Valve Therapeutics annual meeting. Chicago, Illinois, June 4, 2015.

  68. Martinez-Clark PO, Singh V, Cadena JA, et al. Transcaval retrograde transcatheter aortic valve replacement for patients with no other access: first-in-man experience with CoreValve. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:1075–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H, Tron C, et al. Early experience with percutaneous transcatheter implantation of heart valve prosthesis for the treatment of end-stage inoperable patients with calcific aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:698–703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H, Tron C, et al. Treatment of calcific aortic stenosis with the percutaneous heart valve: mid-term follow-up from the initial feasibility studies: the French experience. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:1214–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Cohen MG, Singh V, Martinez CA, et al. Transseptal antegrade transcatheter aortic valve replacement for patients with no other access approach - a contemporary experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82:987–93. Contemporary experience with the transseptal approach.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Heart & Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Jayendrakumar S. Patel, Amar Krishnaswamy, Lars G. Svensson, E. Murat Tuzcu, Stephanie Mick & Samir R. Kapadia

  2. Cleveland Clinic, Sones Catheterization Laboratories, Mail Code J2-3, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA

    Samir R. Kapadia

Authors
  1. Jayendrakumar S. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amar Krishnaswamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lars G. Svensson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. Murat Tuzcu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stephanie Mick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Samir R. Kapadia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samir R. Kapadia.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Lars G. Svensson reports being an unpaid member of Partner EC. Jayendrakumar S. Patel, Amar Krishnaswamy, E. Murat Tuzcu, Stephanie Mick, and Samir R. Kapadia declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Valvular Heart Disease

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patel, J.S., Krishnaswamy, A., Svensson, L.G. et al. Access Options for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Unfavorable Aortoiliofemoral Anatomy. Curr Cardiol Rep 18, 110 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-016-0788-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-016-0788-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation