Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has established itself as a safe and efficient treatment option in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis, regardless of the underlying surgical risk. Widespread adoption of transfemoral procedures led to more patients than ever being eligible for TAVR. This increase in procedural volumes has also stimulated the use of vascular closure devices (VCDs) for improved access site management. In a single-center examination, we investigated 871 patients that underwent transfemoral TAVR from 2010 to 2020 and assessed vascular complications according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) III recommendations. Patients were grouped by the VCD and both, vascular closure success and need for intervention were analyzed. In case of a vascular complication, the type of intervention was investigated for all VCDs. The Proglide VCD was the most frequently used device (n = 670), followed by the Prostar device (n = 112). Patients were old (median age 83 years) and patients suffered from high comorbidity burden (60% coronary artery disease, 30% type II diabetes, 40% atrial fibrillation). The overall rate of major complications amounted to 4.6%, it was highest in the Prostar group (9.6%) and lowest in the Manta VCD group (1.1% p = 0.019). The most frequent vascular complications were bleeding and hematoma (n = 110, 13%). In case a complication occurred, 72% of patients did not need any further intervention other than manual compression or pressure bandages. The rate of surgical intervention after complication was highest in the Prostar group (n = 15, 29%, p = 0.001). Temporal trends in VCD usage highlight the rapid adoption of the Proglide system after introduction at our institution. In recent years VCD alternatives, utilizing other closure techniques, such as the Manta device emerged and increased vascular access site management options. This 10-year single-center experience demonstrates high success rates for all VCDs. Despite successful closure, a significant number of patients does experience minor vascular complications, in particular bleeding and hematoma. However, most complications do not require surgical or endovascular intervention. Temporal trends display a marked increase in TAVR procedures and highlight the need for more refined vascular access management strategies.
Introduction: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has rapidly developed over the last decade and is nowadays the treatment of choice in the elderly patients irrespective of surgical risk. The outcome of these patients is mainly determined not only by the interventional procedure itself, but also by its complications.
Material and Methods: We analyzed the outcome and procedural events of transfemoral TAVI procedures performed per year at our institution. The mean age of these patients is 79.2 years and 49% are female. All the patients underwent duplex ultrasonography of the iliac arteries and inguinal vessels before the procedure and CT of the aorta and iliac arteries.
Results: Transfemoral access route is associated with a number of challenges and complications, especially in the patients suffering from peripheral artery disease (PAD). The rate of vascular complications at our center was 2.76% (19/689). Typical vascular complications (VC) include bleeding and pseudoaneurysms at the puncture site, acute or subacute occlusion of the access vessel, and dissection or perforation of the iliac vessels. In addition, there is the need for primary PTA of the access pathway in the presence of additional PAD of the common femoral artery (CFA) and iliac vessels. Balloon angioplasty, implantation of covered and uncovered stents, lithoplasty, and ultrasound-guided thrombin injection are available to treat the described issues.
Conclusion: Interventional therapy of access vessels can preoperatively enable the transfemoral approach and successfully treat post-operative VC in most of the cases. Training the heart team to address these issues is a key focus, and an interventional vascular specialist should be part of this team.
Transfemoral access remains the most widely used peripheral vascular approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Despite technical improvement and reduction in delivery sheath diameters of all TAVI platforms, 10–20% of patients remain not eligible to transfemoral TAVI due to peripheral artery disease. In this review, we aim at presenting an update of recent data concerning transfemoral access and percutaneous closure devices. Moreover, we will review peripheral non-transfemoral alternative as well as caval-aortic accesses and discuss the important features to assess with pre-procedural imaging modalities before TAVI.
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is currently an established therapy for elderly patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis across all surgical risk categories. Access is an important aspect when planning for and performing TAVI. The superiority of a transfemoral (TF) approach compared to a transthoracic (transapical, direct aortic) approach has been demonstrated in several studies. Recently, the introduction of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has made it possible to treat patients with calcified iliofemoral disease by TF approach. This article aimed to provide a comprehensive overview on the following aspects: (1) preprocedural planning for IVL-assisted TF-TAVI; (2) procedural aspects in IVL-assisted TF-TAVI; (3) outcomes of IVL-assisted TF-TAVI in an experienced TAVI center; and (4) literature review and discussion of this new emerging approach.