Transaxillary Approach Short- and Mid-Term Results in a Single-Center Experience

Abstract

Objective

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is increasingly accepted as an alternative procedure in patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement. Transfemoral (TF) approach is the first option when feasible, but in case of peripheral vascular disease this approach is precluded. In our institution, for this kind of patients we considered transaxillary (TAx) approach as second choice and transapical (TAp) or transaortic (TAa) as last routes. This study describes short- and mid-term morbidity and mortality for TAx approach.

Methods

From November 2007 to March 2011, 284 patients underwent TAVI at our site; 229 treated by TF approach, 22 TAp, 2 TAa, and 31 TAx. Four patients were treated with an Edwards Sapien valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Inc., Irvine, CA USA) with TAx approach and 27 with CoreValve Revalving System (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN USA). TAx TAVI was performed in cath-laboratory with local anesthesia and mild sedation by a multispeciality valve team. We analyzed major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, major adverse valve-related events, vascular complications, and 30 days and 6 months mortality.

Results

The procedural success rate (successful implantation of the device without intraprocedural mortality or need to conversion to open heart surgery) was 96.8% (30/31). Major adverse valve-related events were 12.9% (4/31). 30-day mortality was 6.4% (2/31) and actuarial survival at 6 months was 82.95% ± 7.96%. In one patient, procedure was converted to a TF CoreValve in emergency for hemodynamic instability after valvuloplasty due to severe difficulty to introduce the Edwards valve in the subclavian artery.

Conclusions

TAx approach is a feasible and technically simple procedure with encouraging results considering morbidity and mortality at short- and mid-term follow-up. TAx is a valid solution in patients with contraindications to TF approach and it is an alternative approach potentially less invasive than TAp or TAa.

Keywords

Transcatheter aortic valve Transaxillary approach Aortic stenosis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Nkomo

V.T.

, Gardin

J.M.

, Skelton

T.N.

Burden of valvular heart diseases: a population-based study. Lancet. 2006; 368: 1005–1011.

Horstkotte

, Loogen

The natural history of aortic valve stenosis. Eur Heart J. 1988; 9(Suppl E): 57–64.

Vahanian

, Baumgartner

, Bax

; Task Force on the Management of Valvular Hearth Disease of the European Society of Cardiology; ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease: The Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2007; 28: 230–268.

Iung

, Baron

, Butchart

E.G.

A prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: The Euro Heart Survey on Valvular Heart Disease. Eur Heart J. 2003; 24: 1231–1243.

Vahanian

, Alfieri

O.R.

, Al-Attar

Transcatheter valve implantation for patients with aortic stenosis: a position statement from the European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), in collaboration with the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2008; 34: 1–8.

Zajarias

, Cribier

A.G.

Outcomes and safety of percutaneous aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 53: 1829–1836.

Grube

, Schuler

, Buellesfeld

Percutaneous aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis in high-risk patients using the second- and current third-generation self-expanding CoreValve prosthesis: device success and 30-day clinical outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 50: 69–76.

Piazza

, Grube

, Gerckens

Procedural and 30-day outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the third generation (18 Fr) corevalve revalving system: results from the multicentre, expanded evaluation registry 1-year following CE mark approval. Eurointervention. 2008; 4: 242–249.

Webb

J.G.

, Pasupati

, Humphries

Percutaneous transarterial aortic valve replacement in selected high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. Circulation. 2007; 116: 755–763.

10.

Charlson

, Legedza

A.T.

, Hamel

M.B.

Decision-making and outcomes in severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. J Heart Valve Dis. 2006; 15: 312–321.

11.

Taramasso

, Maisano

, Cioni

Trans-apical and trans-axillary percutaneous aortic valve implantation as alternative to the femoral route: short and middle-term results. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011; 40: 49–55.

12.

Bruschi

, De Marco

, Fratto

Alternative approaches for trans-catheter self-expanding aortic bioprosthetic valves implantation: single-center experience. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011; 39: e151–e158.

13.

Petronio

A.S.

, De Carlo

, Bedogni

Safety and efficacy of the subclavian approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the CoreValve revalving system. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010; 3: 359–366.

14.

Modine

, Obadia

J.F.

, Choukroun

Transcutaneous aortic valve implantation using the axillary/subclavian access: feasibility and early clinical outcomes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011; 141: 487–491.