» Articles » PMID: 35886501

The Transaxillary Route As a Second Access Option in TAVI Procedures: Experience of a Single Centre

Abstract

The aim of our study was to determine the feasibility and efficacy of transaxillary (TAX) TAVI in patients not eligible for the transfemoral route. This is a retrospective study of a single center. We analysed 262 patients treated with TAVI. In 17 patients (6.5%), the procedure was performed with the TAX approach. Procedural and hospital data, 30-day safety, and clinical efficacy were assessed and compared between the transfemoral and TAX groups. In the TAX groups, we found a higher prevalence of men ( = 0.001), smokers ( = 0.033), and previous strokes ( = 0.02). The EUROSCORE II was higher in the TAX group ( = 0.014). The success rate of the device was 100%. TAX was associated with a longer procedure time ( = 0.001) and shorter median device time ( = 0.034) in minutes. Patients treated with TAX had a longer hospital stay ( = 0.005) and higher overall bleeding rate ( = 0.001). Peripheral neurological complications were more frequent with TAX ( = 0.001), which almost completely resolved by 30 days. TAX TAVI is safe and effective and should be considered as a second choice when transfemoral TAVI is not feasible due to severe comorbidities.

Citing Articles

Procedural success in transaxillary transcatheter aortic valve implantation according to type of transcatheter heart valve: results from the multicenter TAXI registry.

Schaefer A, Bhadra O, Conradi L, Westermann D, Kellner C, De Backer O Clin Res Cardiol. 2023; 113(1):48-57.

PMID: 37138103 DOI: 10.1007/s00392-023-02216-1.

References
1.
Zhan Y, Toomey N, Ortoleva J, Kawabori M, Weintraub A, Chen F . Safety and efficacy of transaxillary transcatheter aortic valve replacement using a current-generation balloon-expandable valve. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2020; 15(1):244. PMC: 7488327. DOI: 10.1186/s13019-020-01291-z. View

2.
Marano R, Pontone G, Agricola E, Alushi B, Bartorelli A, Cameli M . Recommendations in pre-procedural imaging assessment for TAVI intervention: SIC-SIRM position paper part 2 (CT and MR angiography, standard medical reporting, future perspectives). Radiol Med. 2022; 127(3):277-293. DOI: 10.1007/s11547-021-01434-9. View

3.
Kappetein A, Head S, Genereux P, Piazza N, Van Mieghem N, Blackstone E . Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 60(15):1438-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.09.001. View

4.
Overtchouk P, Prendergast B, Modine T . Why should we extend transcatheter aortic valve implantation to low-risk patients? A comprehensive review. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2019; 112(5):354-362. DOI: 10.1016/j.acvd.2019.03.004. View

5.
Schamroth Pravda N, Codner P, Vaknin Assa H, Witberg G, Assali A, Orvin K . Long Term Outcomes of Patients Treated With Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2020; 141:72-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.11.007. View