Next Article in Journal
Prognostic Value of Serum Galectin-3 for Survival in Patients with Cardiac Light-Chain Amyloidosis
Previous Article in Journal
Ventricular Fibrillation during Optical Coherence Tomography
Previous Article in Special Issue
Obesity and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
 
 
Journals
JCDD
Volume 11
Issue 7
10.3390/jcdd11070201
jcdd-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Ten-Year Experience with a Transapical Approach for Transcatheter Aortic and Mitral Valve Implantation

by
Antonella Galeone
1,*,
Fabiola Perrone
1,
Gabriele Pesarini
2,
Flavio Luciano Ribichini
2,
Renato Di Gaetano
3,
Giovanni Battista Luciani
1 and
Francesco Onorati
1
1
Department of Surgery, Dentistry, Pediatrics and Gynecology, Division of Cardiac Surgery, University of Verona, 37126 Verona, Italy
2
Division of Cardiology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, 37126 Verona, Italy
3
Department of Cardiology, Azienda Sanitaria dell’Alto Adige, 39100 Bolzano, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 2024, 11(7), 201; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11070201
Submission received: 16 June 2024 / Revised: 23 June 2024 / Accepted: 27 June 2024 / Published: 29 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) II)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: The transfemoral approach represents the optimal access for TAVI due to its low invasiveness; however, up to 10–15% of TAVI candidates are considered unsuitable for femoral access because of significant peripheral vascular disease and need alternative access. Methods: This is a single-center retrospective observational study including all consecutive adult patients undergoing transcatheter procedures through a TA approach from March 2015 to April 2024. Results: 213 patients underwent transcatheter aortic or mitral valve implantation through a TA approach and were enrolled in this study. The mean age of the patients was 79.5 ± 5.7 years, and 54% of the patients were males. The mean Euroscore II was 7.9 ± 6.4%. One-third of the patients had previous cardiac surgery. The overall mean survival time was 5.3 ± 0.3 years. Nine (4%) patients developed infective endocarditis (IE) during the follow-up. Conclusions: The transapical approach for transcatheter procedures is a safe and effective procedure for patients unsuitable for TF access with low periprocedural mortality and a low rate of post-procedural complications when performed by experienced surgeons and cardiologists.

1. Introduction

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) emerged more than twenty years ago as a valid alternative to standard surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and multiple comorbidities [1]. The transfemoral (TF) approach undoubtedly represents the optimal access for TAVI, and it is also favored by current guidelines [2]. Due to its low invasiveness, TF-TAVI can be performed without general anesthesia, facilitates the patient’s recovery, and allows a shorter hospital stay. However, recent reports showed that up to 10–15% of TAVI candidates are considered unsuitable for femoral access because of significant peripheral vascular disease conditioning severe vessel narrowing, calcification, and tortuosity, or significant thoracic or abdominal aortic disease such as aneurysms and dissection [3,4]. Alternative accesses have been proposed in patients with severe iliofemoral artery disease, such as transapical (TA), transaxillary (TAx), transcarotid (TC), transaortic, transcaval and suprasternal approach [5]. TA-TAVI was first performed in 2005 [6], and it was considered the first alternative procedure when the TF approach was contraindicated [7]. The main advantages of the TA approach are fewer vascular complications, less use of contrast and fluoroscopy, a short distance from the sheath to the annulus, and improved valve alignment before deployment with fewer prosthetic valve leaks (PVLs). Disadvantages include invasiveness, risk of myocardial injury, and complications related to puncture sites, such as bleeding, ventricular apex pseudo-aneurysm, coronary artery damage, and arrhythmias [8].
Transcatheter valve technology has also been utilized in patients affected by mitral valve (MV) bioprosthesis degeneration or failed mitral valve repair (MVr) that require redo surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR), a high-risk operation associated with high mortality and major complications [9]. Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve (ViV-TMVI) or valve-in-ring (ViR-TMVI) implantation represents a safe and reproducible alternative for patients with a degenerated bioprosthesis or a previous MVr who are at high risk for SMVR [10]. Early experiences with ViV-TMVR were conducted via a trans-apical approach through a left mini-thoracotomy as it offers direct access and device coaxiality [11].
The aim of the present study was to investigate the early and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing TAVI and TMVI at our institution using a TA approach over a 10-year period since the beginning of the TA-TAVI/TVMI program in 2015.

2. Materials and Methods

This is a single-center retrospective observational study including all consecutive adult patients undergoing transcatheter procedures through a TA approach from March 2015 to April 2024. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee (EC) of the Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata of Verona. Due to the retrospective nature of the study, written informed consent was waived by the EC. Patients with symptomatic aortic and/or mitral valve disease and at high risk for surgery were screened for transcatheter valve implantation by our institutional Heart Team according to the current guidelines [2]. Patients presenting with peripheral arteries unsuitable for standard transfemoral approach at CT-scan analysis were treated using the TA approach. We enrolled in the study patients undergoing TA-TAVI for severe AS, TA-ViV-TAVI for aortic bioprosthesis degeneration, TA-ViV-TMVI for mitral bioprosthesis degeneration, and TA-ViR-TMVI for failed MVr.
Patients’ baseline characteristics, intra and perioperative data, and in-hospital outcomes were extracted from patients’ paper-based and electronic medical records. Clinical outcomes of interest included periprocedural death and postoperative complications according to the latest Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) criteria [12]. Periprocedural mortality was defined as death occurring 30 days after the index procedure or >30 days but during the index hospitalization [12]. Postoperative complications included stroke, periprocedural myocardial injury (PMI), acute kidney injury (AKI), bleeding, atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacemaker (PM) implantation, valve-related complications, including conversion to surgery, implantation of multiple (>1) valves during the index hospitalization because of valve malposition, thrombosis, and paravalvular regurgitation, vascular and access site complications [12].

2.1. Operative Technique

All TA transcatheter procedures were performed in the catheterization laboratory by all Heart Team members, including cardiologists and cardiac surgeons. All patients underwent TA transcatheter procedures under general anesthesia, fluoroscopic control, and periprocedural transesophageal echocardiographic control. Transcatheter valve implantation was performed through a left anterolateral mini-thoracotomy at the fifth intercostal space. The left ventricular apex was prepared with two reinforced concentric 3-0 polypropylene purse-string sutures. A temporary venous PM was placed in the right ventricle for the rapid pacing through a femoral vein. During the study period, balloon-expandable Sapien XT, Sapien 3, and Sapien 3 Ultra (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) were implanted under rapid ventricular pacing. Valve sizing was determined based on preoperative ECG gathered computed tomography scan findings. After the procedure, all patients were transferred to the intensive care unit for surveillance.

2.2. Follow-Up

Follow-up data were collected until May 2024 via phone and e-mail contact with patients, family members, family physicians, and cardiologists. Subsequent hospitalization and routine visit data were collected from hospital records and cardiology reports. The follow-up time was calculated either to death or to the last verified contact with the patient. Clinical outcomes of interest included mortality and bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD). Mortality was defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) as early (occurring >30 days but ≤1 year after the index hospitalization) and late mortality (occurring >1 year after the index hospitalization) according to VARC-3 criteria [12]. BVD was defined as the presence of structural valve dysfunction (SVD), non-SVD (NSVD), infective endocarditis, and thrombosis [12].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Categorical variables are expressed as numbers and percentages and compared with the χ2 test. Continuous variables with a skewed distribution are presented as median and interquartile range and compared with the Mann–Whitney U test. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to draw survival curves; the log-rank test was used to compare survival among groups. The Reverse Kaplan–Meier method was used to calculate the median follow-up time.

3. Results

During the study period, 213 consecutive patients underwent transcatheter aortic or mitral valve implantation through a TA approach at our institution and were enrolled in the study. The median age of the patients was 80 (77–84) years (mean: 79.5 ± 5.7 years), and 54% of the patients were males. Median Euroscore II was 5.68 (3.55–1.46)% (mean: 7.9 ± 6.4%). One-third of the patients had previous cardiac surgery. The baseline characteristics of the patients are illustrated in Table 1.
One hundred sixty-four (77%) patients underwent TA-TAVI for severe aortic stenosis, 10 (5%) patients underwent TA-ViV-TAVI for aortic prosthesis degeneration, 30 (14%) patients underwent TA-ViV-TMVI for mitral prosthesis degeneration, 6 (3%) patients underwent both TA-TAVI and ViV-TMVI for severe AS and mitral prosthesis degeneration and 3 (1%) patients underwent TA ViR-TMVI for MVr failure. A total of 219 prostheses were implanted in 213 patients. Details of implanted prostheses and intra and periprocedural outcomes are illustrated in Table 2.

3.1. Survival

Follow-up was 100% complete, and the mean follow-up time was 4.7 ± 0.2 years. There was no intra-procedural death. Ninety-one (42.7%) patients died during the follow-up. We recorded 6 (2.8%) periprocedural deaths, 17 (7.9%) early deaths, and 68 (31.9%) late deaths. Periprocedural deaths occurred in 4 patients undergoing TA-TAVI for AS and 2 patients undergoing TA-ViV-TAVI for aortic prosthesis degeneration. Causes of periprocedural death were valve thrombosis (n = 1), stroke (n = 2), sepsis (n = 1), cardiac arrest (n = 1), and bowel ischemia (n = 1). The overall mean survival time was 5.3 ± 0.3 years. Survival rates were 98.6% at 30 days, 89% at 1 year, and 51% at 5 years (Figure 1).
No difference was observed in survival between patients who underwent TA-TAVI and patients who underwent TA-TVMI. Seventy-six (44%) patients with TA-TAVI and 15 (38%) patients with TA-TMVI died during the follow-up. Mean survival was 5.2 ± 0.3 years in patients with TA-TAVI and 5.2 ± 0.4 years in patients with TA-TMVI (p = 0.42) (Figure 2).
Fifty-three (46%) male and 38 (38%) female patients died during the follow-up. No difference was observed in survival between male and female patients, and mean survival was 4.8 ± 0.4 years for male and 5.7 ± 0.4 years for female patients (p = 0.07) (Figure 3).
There was no difference in survival between patients aged < 80 years and patients aged > 80 years at the time of transcatheter valve implantation. Thirty-three (32%) patients aged < 80 years and 58 (52%) patients aged > 80 years died during the follow-up. The mean survival time was 5.8 ± 0.4 years for patients aged < 80 years and 4.9 ± 0.3 years for patients aged > 80 years (p = 0.1) (Figure 4).
More patients with PPMI died during the follow-up (62/98, 63%) compared with patients without PPMI (29/115, 25%); however, no statistically significant difference was observed in survival between patients with PPMI and patients without PPMI (Figure 5).

3.2. Follow-Up Events

Nine (4%) patients developed infective endocarditis (IE) during the follow-up; 4 patients had early IE (within 1 year from the transcatheter procedure), and 5 patients developed late IE (>1 year following the transcatheter procedure). Infective endocarditis was recorded in 7 patients with TA-TAVI, 1 patient with TA-ViV-TAVI, and 1 patient with TA-ViV-TMVI. Two patients underwent open heart surgery for IE and were still alive at the end of the follow-up, while 7 patients were treated with ev antibiotics and died during the follow-up. Survival rates free from IE were 97.9% at 1 year and 93.7% at 5 years (Figure 6). One patient with previous TA-ViV-TMVR underwent TF-TAVI for severe AS. There was no re-operation for SVD during the follow-up period.

4. Discussion

Our series showed that transcatheter valve implantation through a TA approach is a safe procedure for patients unsuitable for TF access with periprocedural mortality of 2.8% and a low rate of post-procedural complications when performed by an experienced multidisciplinary heart team. Previously published series reported higher periprocedural death rates in patients undergoing TA-TAVI ranging from 4% to 15.7%, with contradictory findings when compared with a TF approach [13]. In the PREVAIL transapical study, including 150 patients undergoing TA-TAVI using the Sapien XT valve the mortality at 30 days was 8.7% [13]. A French registry enrolling 3195 patients showed that 30-day mortality was significantly lower with the TF approach than with the TA approach (8.5% vs. 13.9%, respectively) [14]. Similarly, a study on 1620 patients undergoing TAVI in the UK showed that TA access was associated with significantly higher 30-day mortality compared with TF access (11.2% vs. 4.4%, respectively) [15]. Another observational study of 4 European registries also found lower 30-day mortality in patients undergoing TF-TAVI compared to patients undergoing TA-TAVI (6.4% vs. 15.7%, respectively) [16]. A substudy of the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER)-I trial compared outcomes of 501 propensity-score (PS) matched pairs of TF and TA-TAVI procedures and found that TF-TAVI was associated with significantly lower rates of in-hospital mortality compared with TA-TAVI (2.8% vs. 7.4% respectively) [17]. Another PS-matched analysis of 1576 pairs of TF-TAVI and TA-TAVI procedures showed that TF-TAVI was associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality (3.1% vs. 4.9%, respectively) [18].
In contrast to these findings, a PS-matching analysis of two groups of 354 patients, each with either access route, found no significant difference in 30-day mortality for TA and TF access (5.9% versus 8.5% respectively [19]. Similarly, a PS-matched analysis of 199 pairs of TF and TA-TAVI procedures from an Italian registry showed no association between access choice and short-term mortality 4% for TF-TAVI and 8% for TA-TAVI) [20]. A single-center study from a large volume center in the United States also showed that all-cause mortality at 30 days was identical in both TF and TA groups (4.5% vs. 5.3%, respectively) [21]. Another study found similar hospital mortality between the TF and TA approach (10% vs. 9% respectively) despite the fact that the logistic Euroscore was significantly higher in the TA group [22].
The TC approach has emerged since 2010 as a safe alternative in patients with unfavorable ilio-femoral artery anatomy. However, stroke remains the main concern for the TC approach. A recent metanalysis including 22 observational studies with a total of 11,896 patients showed that the TC approach reduced mortality and the risk of major vascular complications and major bleeding compared with the TA approach, but the difference was not statistically significant. Additionally, the TC approach did not increase the risk of stroke compared with TF or the other alternative accesses [23]
A recent study focused on 9686 patients who received a non-TF access and compared TA approach to other alternative vascular accesses and found that TA patients had a significantly lower 30-day survival compared to TAx approach patients (TA 90.92% vs. TAx 95.59%) [24]. A recent meta-analysis analyzed intrathoracic (IT: TA and transaortic) and extrathoracic (ET: TC, TAx, and transubclavian) vascular accesses for TAVI in patients in which the TF approach was contraindicated. The metanalysis included 18 studies with 6800 IT-TAVR patients and 5032 ET-TAVR patients. IT access was associated with a significantly higher risk of in-hospital or 30-day all-cause mortality (RR 1.99, 95% CI: 1.67 to 2.369) [25].
Previous studies suggested that in an experienced multidisciplinary heart team, either access route can be performed with comparable results [19]. A recent report on 1130 patients scheduled for TAVI showed that TA patients had a higher operative risk profile compared to TF patients (logistic EuroSCORE: 24% vs. 17%). The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was higher in TA than in TF patients, albeit this difference was not significant [TA: 6.7%, TF: 4.8%]. The multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed the logistic EuroSCORE and institutional experience but not the access mode as independent predictors of 30-day mortality [26]. In institutions performing a low volume of TA-TAVI, the technique is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality and longer hospital stays but fewer vascular complications in comparison with TF-TAVI. Besides patient-related variables, it has been suggested that procedural and operator-related factors may play an important role in the observed difference in outcome. TA-TAVI is usually performed in fewer patients thus conditioning a dissimilar experience and expertise between TF-TAVI and TA-TAVI. Local expertise seems to be the most important factor of favorable results in TA TAVI. Centers performing higher volumes of TA procedures demonstrate more favorable results, suggesting a clear relationship between volume and outcomes. In a series reporting the results of ten-year experience in 312 consecutive high-risk patients treated with TA-TAVI, 30-day mortality decreased from 8.2% to 4.2% in later years, suggesting that time and practice contribute to successful outcomes [27]. Additionally, a trend towards lower mortality after TA-TAVI similar to that observed after TF-TAVI in more recent studies could reflect the improved experience of investigators as well as advances in device technology and perioperative management.
Postprocedural myocardial injury or infarction has been observed in up to two-thirds of patients after transcatheter procedures [28,29] and is associated with worse outcomes [30,31]. In our series, we found that 46% of patients had PPMI after a transcatheter procedure using a troponin threshold to define PPMI as an increase > 70 times the local laboratory upper reference limit (URL) according to the latest VARC-3 criteria [12]; however, we did not find any difference in short and long-term survival between patients with and without PPMI. Conversely, a recent report on 1394 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI found that only 14.0% of patients had PPMI according to VARC-3 criteria and that PPMI was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality at 30-day and 1-year [32].
Renal complications occurred in only 23% of patients in our series, and we observed mostly AKI stage 1 and no case of AKI stage 4. In contrast, the previous report reported a higher incidence of AKI in patients undergoing TA-TAVI, up to 66.7% [33]. Despite being performed with less contrast, TA-TAVI is associated with a higher risk of AKI, and it has been proposed that surgical trauma, systemic inflammatory response, and renal damage could contribute to the development of AKI [33]. Additionally, some reports showed that TF-TAVI was associated with lower rates of AKI when compared with TA-TAVI [17], while others did not [21].
Another emerging and serious complication after transcatheter procedures is IE. Previous studies showed that IE after TAVI has an incidence of 0.3 to 2.0 per 100 person-years, which is similar to that observed after SAVR [34,35,36,37]. It has also been suggested that early IE after TAVI is more common than late IE after TAVI [38]. However, a meta-analysis of the most relevant randomized controlled trials comparing TAVR and SAVR found no differences in early and late IE incidence between the groups [39]. Consistently, in our series, 4% of patients developed IE during the follow-up, and we found a similar rate of early and late IE. Surgical treatment is associated with a large survival advantage in patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis, even if it implies substantial operative mortality [40,41,42]. However, previous studies reported low surgical rates in patients with IE after transcatheter procedures around 20% [43,44,45] that are similar to that reported in this study. Few studies have compared surgery and medical therapy alone in patients with IE after TAVI, showing that cardiac surgery was not associated with improved in-hospital mortality or all-cause mortality at 1 year compared with medical management alone [46,47,48]. Specific guidelines for the management of patients with IE after transcatheter procedures are strongly required and further studies are needed to determine the benefit of surgery in these patients.
The main limitation of this study is that it is a single-center, retrospective observational study on a small population, and selection bias is unavoidable. Additionally, pre and postoperative management of the patients could have changed during the last decade. Therefore, the results of our series cannot be generalized to the entire population, and multicenter studies are needed to provide more precise information.

5. Conclusions

Transcatheter aortic and mitral valve implantation through a TA approach is a safe and effective procedure for patients unsuitable for TF access with low periprocedural mortality and a low rate of post-procedural complications when performed by experienced surgeons and cardiologists.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.G. and F.O.; methodology, A.G. and F.O.; validation, A.G., G.P. and F.O.; formal analysis, A.G.; investigation, A.G., G.P. and F.O.; data curation, A.G., F.P. and R.D.G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.G.; writing—review and editing, G.P., F.L.R., G.B.L. and F.O.; visualization, A.G., F.P., G.P., F.L.R., R.D.G., G.B.L. and F.O.; supervision, G.B.L. and F.O.; project administration, A.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the observational and retrospective nature of the study.

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived because patients cannot be identified.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Renato di Gaetano was employed by the Azienda Sanitaria dell’Alto Adige. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cribier, A.; Eltchaninoff, H.; Bash, A.; Borenstein, N.; Tron, C.; Bauer, F.; Derumeaux, G.; Anselme, F.; Laborde, F.; Leon, M.B. Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: First human case description. Circulation 2002, 106, 3006–3008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Vahanian, A.; Beyersdorf, F.; Praz, F.; Milojevic, M.; Baldus, S.; Bauersachs, J.; Capodanno, D.; Conradi, L.; De Bonis, M.; De Paulis, R.; et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease: Developed by the Task Force for the management of valvular heart disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. 2022, 43, 561–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Patel, J.S.; Krishnaswamy, A.; Svensson, L.G.; Tuzcu, E.M.; Mick, S.; Kapadia, S.R. Access options for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with unfavorable aortoiliofemoral anatomy. Curr. Cardiol. Rep. 2016, 18, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Vemulapalli, S.; Carroll, J.D.; Mack, M.J.; Li, Z.; Dai, D.; Kosinski, A.S.; Kumbhani, D.J.; Ruiz, C.E.; Thourani, V.H.; Hanzel, G.; et al. Procedural volume and outcomes for transcatheter aortic-valve replacement. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 380, 2541–2550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Mitsis, A.; Eftychiou, C.; Eteokleous, N.; Papadopoulos, K.; Zittis, I.; Avraamides, P. Current trends in TAVI access. Curr. Probl. Cardiol. 2021, 46, 100844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Ye, J.; Cheung, A.; Lichtenstein, S.; Carere, R.G.; Thompson, C.R.; Pasupati, S.; Webb, J.G. Transapical aortic valve implantation in humans. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2006, 131, 1194–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Murdock, J.E.; Jensen, H.; Thourani, V. Nontransfemoral approaches to transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Intervent. Cardiol. Clin. 2015, 4, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Madigan, M.; Atoui, R. Non-transfemoral access sites for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J. Thorac. Dis. 2018, 10, 4505–4515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ejiofor, J.I.; Hirji, S.A.; Ramirez-Del Val, F.; Norman, A.V.; McGurk, S.; Aranki, S.F.; Shekar, P.S.; Kaneko, T. Outcomes of repeat mitral valve replacement in patients with prior mitral surgery: A benchmark for transcatheter approaches. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2018, 156, 619–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Yoon, S.H.; Whisenant, B.K.; Bleiziffer, S.; Delgado, V.; Schofer, N.; Eschenbach, L.; Fujita, B.; Sharma, R.; Ancona, M.; Yzeiraj, E.; et al. Transcatheter mitral valve replacement for degenerated bioprosthetic valves and failed annuloplasty rings. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2017, 70, 1121–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Regueiro, A.; Granada, J.F.; Dagenais, F.; Rodés-Cabau, J. Transcatheter mitral valve replacement: Insights from early clinical experience and future challenges. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2017, 69, 2175–2192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. VARC-3 WRITING COMMITTEE; Généreux, P.; Piazza, N.; Alu, M.C.; Nazif, T.; Hahn, R.T.; Pibarot, P.; Bax, J.J.; Leipsic, J.A.; Blanke, P.; et al. Valve Academic Research Consortium 3: Updated Endpoint Definitions for Aortic Valve Clinical Research. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2021, 77, 2717–2746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Walther, T.; Thielmann, M.; Kempfert, J.; Schroefel, H.; Wimmer-Greinecker, G.; Treede, H.; Wahlers, T.; Wendler, O. One-year multicentre outcomes of transapical aortic valve implantation using the SAPIEN XT valve: The PREVAIL transapical study. Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surgery 2013, 43, 986–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Gilard, M.; Eltchaninoff, H.; Iung, B.; Donzeau-Gouge, P.; Chevreul, K.; Fajadet, J.; Leprince, P.; Leguerrier, A.; Lievre, M.; Prat, A.; et al. Registry of transcatheter aortic-valve implantation in high-risk patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 366, 1705–1715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Blackman, D.J.; Baxter, P.D.; Gale, C.P.; Moat, N.E.; Maccarthy, P.A.; HildickSmith, D.; Trivedi, U.; Cunningham, D.; de Belder, M.A.; Ludman, P.F.; et al. Do outcomes from transcatheter aortic valve implantation vary according to access route and valve type? The UK TAVI Registry. J. Interv. Cardiol. 2014, 27, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Van der Boon, R.M.A.; Marcheix, B.; Tchetche, D.; Chieffo, A.; Van Mieghem, N.M.; Dumonteil, N.; Vahdat, O.; Maisano, F.; Serruys, P.W.; Kappetein, A.P.; et al. Transapical versus transfemoral aorticvalve implantation: A multicenter collaborative study. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2014, 97, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Blackstone, E.H.; Suri, R.M.; Rajeswaran, J.; Babaliaros, V.; Douglas, P.S.; Fearon, W.F.; Miller, D.C.; Hahn, R.T.; Kapadia, S.; Kirtane, A.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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kumar, N.; Khera, R.; Fonarow, G.C.; Bhatt, D.L. Comparison of Outcomes of Transfemoral Versus Transapical Approach for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. Am. J. Cardiol. 2018, 122, 1520–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Schymik, G.; Würth, A.; Bramlage, P.; Herbinger, T.; Heimeshoff, M.; Pilz, L.; Schymik, J.S.; Wondraschek, R.; Süselbeck, T.; Gerhardus, J.; et al. Long-term results of transapical versus transfemoral TAVI in a real world population of 1000 patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2014, 8, e000761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Biancari, F.; Rosato, S.; D’Errigo, P.; Ranucci, M.; Onorati, F.; Barbanti, M.; Santini, F.; Tamburino, C.; Santoro, G.; Grossi, C.; et al. Immediate and intermediate outcome after transapical versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Am. J. Cardiol. 2016, 117, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Murarka, S.; Lazkani, M.; Neihaus, M.; Boggess, M.; Morris, M.; Gellert, G.; Fang, H.K.; Pershad, A. Comparison of 30-day outcomes of transfemoral versus transapical approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A single-center US experience. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2015, 99, 1539–1544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Ferrari, E.; Eeckhout, E.; Keller, S.; Muller, O.; Tozzi, P.; Berdajs, D.; von Segesser, L.K. Transfemoral versus transapical approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Hospital outcome and risk factor analysis. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2017, 12, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Abraham, B.; Sous, M.; Sedhom, R.; Megaly, M.; Roman, S.; Sweeney, J.; Alkhouli, M.; Pollak, P.; El Sabbagh, A.; Garcia, S.; et al. Meta-Analysis on Transcarotid Versus Transfemoral and Other Alternate Accesses for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. Am. J. Cardiol. 2023, 192, 196–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Meertens, M.M.; Adam, M.; Beckmann, A.; Ensminger, S.; Frerker, C.; Seiffert, M.; Sinning, J.M.; Bekeredjian, R.; Walther, T.; Beyersdorf, F.; et al. Non-femoral focused transaxillary access in TAVI: GARY data analysis and future trends. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Abellan, C.; Antiochos, P.; Fournier, S.; Skali, H.; Shah, P.; Maurizi, N.; Eeckhout, E.; Roguelov, C.; Monney, P.; Tzimas, G.; et al. Extrathoracic Against Intrathoracic Vascular Accesses for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis. Am. J. Cardiol. 2023, 203, 473–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Reents, W.; Barth, S.; Griese, D.P.; Winkler, S.; Babin-Ebell, J.; Kerber, S.; Diegeler, A.; Zacher, M.; Hamm, K. Transfemoral versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A single-centre experience. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2019, 55, 744–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Papadopoulos, N.; Wenzel, R.; Thudt, M.; Doss, M.; Wimmer-Greinecker, G.; Seeger, F.; El-Sayed Ahmad, A.; Fichtlscherer, S.; Moritz, A.; Zierer, A. A decade of transapical aortic valve implantation. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2016, 102, 759–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Sato, T.; Aizawa, Y.; Yuasa, S.; Taya, Y.; Fujita, S.; Ikeda, Y.; Kitazawa, H.; Takahashi, M.; Okabe, M. The determinants and outcomes of myocardial injury after transcatheter aortic-valve implantation: SAPIEN 3 study. Cardiovasc. Revasc. Med. 2020, 21, 973–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Koskinas, K.C.; Stortecky, S.; Franzone, A.; O’Sullivan, C.J.; Praz, F.; Zuk, K.; Raber, L.; Pilgrim, T.; Moschovitis, A.; Fiedler, G.M.; et al. Post-procedural troponin elevation and clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2016, 5, 3002430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Akodad, M.; Spaziano, M.; Chevalier, B.; Garot, P.; Benamer, H.; Dinan-Zannier, A.; Troussier, X.; Unterseeh, T.; Champagne, S.; Hovasse, T.; et al. Prognostic impact of pre-transcatheter and post-transcatheter aortic valve intervention troponin: A large cohort study. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2019, 8, e011111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Michail, M.; Cameron, J.N.; Nerlekar, N.; Ihdayhid, A.R.; McCormick, L.M.; Gooley, R.; Niccoli, G.; Crea, F.; Montone, R.A.; Brown, A.J. Periprocedural myocardial injury predicts short-and long-term mortality in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2018, 11, e007106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Real, C.; Avvedimento, M.; Nuche, J.; Franzone, A.; Farjat-Pasos, J.; Trinh, K.H.; Delarochellière, R.; Paradis, J.M.; Poulin, A.; Dumont, E.; et al. Myocardial Injury After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement According to VARC-3 Criteria. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2023, 16, 1221–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Saia, F.; Ciuca, C.; Taglieri, N.; Marrozzini, C.; Savini, C.; Bordoni, B.; Dall’Ara, G.; Moretti, C.; Pilato, E.; Martìn-Suàrez, S.; et al. Acute kidney injury following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Incidence, predictors and clinical outcome. Int. J. Cardiol. 2013, 168, 1034–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Fauchier, L.; Bisson, A.; Herbert, J.; Lacour, T.; Bourguignon, T.; Etienne, C.S.; Bernard, A.; Deharo, P.; Bernard, L.; Babuty, D. Incidence and outcomes of infective endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2020, 26, 1368–1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Kolte, D.; Goldsweig, A.; Kennedy, K.F.; Abbott, J.D.; Gordon, P.C.; Sellke, F.W.; Ehsan, A.; Sodha, N.; Sharaf, B.L.; Aronow, H.D. Comparison of incidence, predictors, and outcomes of early infective endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in the United States. Am. J. Cardiol. 2018, 122, 2112–2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Moriyama, N.; Laakso, T.; Biancari, F.; Raivio, P.; Jalava, M.P.; Jaakkola, J.; Dahlbacka, B.; Kinnunen, E.-M.; Juvonen, T.; Husso, A.; et al. Prosthetic valve endocarditis after transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthesis: Results from the FinnValve Registry. EuroIntervention 2019, 15, e500–e507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Summers, M.R.; Leon, M.B.; Smith, C.R.; Kodali, S.K.; Thourani, V.H.; Herrmann, H.C.; Makkar, R.R.; Pibarot, P.; Webb, J.G.; Leipsic, J.; et al. Prosthetic valve endocarditis after TAVR and SAVR: Insights from the PARTNER trials. Circulation 2019, 140, 1984–1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mentias, A.; Girotra, S.; Desai, M.Y.; Horwitz, P.A.; Rossen, J.D.; Saad, M.; Panaich, S.; Kapadia, S.; Sarrazin, M.V. Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the United States. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv. 2020, 13, 1973–1982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Ando, T.; Ashraf, S.; Villablanca, P.A.; Telila, T.A.; Takagi, H.; Grines, C.L.; Afonso, L.; Briasoulis, A. Meta-analysis comparing the incidence of infective endocarditis following transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement. Am. J. Cardiol. 2019, 123, 827–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Galeone, A.; Gardellini, J.; Trojan, D.; Di Nicola, V.; Di Gaetano, R.; Faggian, G.; Luciani, G.B. Three Decades of Experience with Aortic Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis. J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 2023, 10, 338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Galeone, A.; Trojan, D.; Gardellini, J.; Di Gaetano, R.; Faggian, G.; Luciani, G.B. Cryopreserved aortic homografts for complex aortic valve or root endocarditis: A 28-year experience. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2022, 62, ezac193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Galeone, A.; Gardellini, J.; Di Nicola, V.; Perrone, F.; Boschetti, V.; Di Gaetano, R.; Luciani, G.B. Twenty-Year Experience with Surgery for Native and Prosthetic Mitral Valve Endocarditis. Medicina 2023, 59, 1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Bjursten, H.; Rasmussen, M.; Nozohoor, S.; Götberg, M.; Olaison, L.; Rück, A.; Ragnarsson, S. Infective endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A nationwide study. Eur. Heart J. 2019, 40, 3263–3269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. del Val, D.; Abdel-Wahab, M.; Linke, A.; Durand, E.; Ihlemann, N.; Urena, M.; Pellegrini, C.; Giannini, F.; Landt, M.; Auffret, V.; et al. Temporal trends, characteristics, and outcomes of infective endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2021, 73, e3750–e3758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Lanz, J.; Reardon, M.J.; Pilgrim, T.; Stortecky, S.; Deeb, G.M.; Chetcuti, S.; Yakubov, S.J.; Gleason, T.G.; Huang, J.; Windecker, S. Incidence and outcomes of infective endocarditis after transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2021, 10, e020368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Mangner, N.; del Val, D.; Abdel-Wahab, M.; Crusius, L.; Durand, E.; Ihlemann, N.; Urena, M.; Pellegrini, C.; Giannini, F.; Gasior, T.; et al. Surgical treatment of patients with infective endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2022, 79, 772–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Mangner, N.; Leontyev, S.; Woitek, F.J.; Kiefer, P.; Haussig, S.; Binner, C.; Mende, M.; Schlotter, F.; Stachel, G.; Höllriegel, R.; et al. Cardiac surgery compared with antibiotics only in patients developing infective endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2018, 7, e010027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bansal, A.; Jaber, W.A.; Reed, G.W.; Puri, R.; Krishnaswamy, A.; Yun, J.; Unai, S.; Kapadia, S.R. Surgical versus medical management of infective endocarditis after TAVR. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2022, 99, 1592–1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcdd 11 00201 g001
Figure 1. Overall patients’ survival after transcatheter aortic and mitral valve implantation through TA approach.
Figure 1. Overall patients’ survival after transcatheter aortic and mitral valve implantation through TA approach.
Jcdd 11 00201 g001
Jcdd 11 00201 g002
Figure 2. Survival after transcatheter valve implantation through TA approach in patients undergoing TA-TAVI and patients undergoing TA-TVMI.
Figure 2. Survival after transcatheter valve implantation through TA approach in patients undergoing TA-TAVI and patients undergoing TA-TVMI.
Jcdd 11 00201 g002
Jcdd 11 00201 g003
Figure 3. Survival after transcatheter valve implantation through TA approach in male and female patients.
Figure 3. Survival after transcatheter valve implantation through TA approach in male and female patients.
Jcdd 11 00201 g003
Jcdd 11 00201 g004
Figure 4. Survival after transcatheter valve implantation through TA approach in patients aged <80 years and >80 years.
Figure 4. Survival after transcatheter valve implantation through TA approach in patients aged <80 years and >80 years.
Jcdd 11 00201 g004
Jcdd 11 00201 g005
Figure 5. Survival after transcatheter valve implantation through TA approach in patients with and without periprocedural myocardial injury (PPMI).
Figure 5. Survival after transcatheter valve implantation through TA approach in patients with and without periprocedural myocardial injury (PPMI).
Jcdd 11 00201 g005
Jcdd 11 00201 g006
Figure 6. Survival free from infective endocarditis after transcatheter valve implantation through TA approach.
Figure 6. Survival free from infective endocarditis after transcatheter valve implantation through TA approach.
Jcdd 11 00201 g006
Table 1. Patients’ baseline characteristics.
Table 1. Patients’ baseline characteristics.
CharacteristicsOverall (n = 213)
Age (years)80 (77–84)
Sex, male114 (54%)
Body mass index26.4 (23.1–29.8)
Body surface area (m2)1.8 (1.7–1.9)
Hypertension178 (84%)
Diabetes66 (31%)
Dyslipidemia124 (58%)
Previous Acute myocardial infarction34 (16%)
Previous Percutaneous coronary intervention36 (17%)
Heart failure37 (17%)
Pacemaker30 (14%)
Previous cerebrovascular accident34 (16%)
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease76 (36%)
Hemodialysis3 (1%)
Peripheral artery disease123 (58%)
Hepatic cirrhosis14 (7%)
Poor mobility50 (23%)
Hostile chest38 (18%)
Porcelain aorta80 (38%)
Mediastinal irradiation11 (5%)
Previous cardiac surgery70 (33%)
Aortic valve replacement15 (7%)
Mitral valve replacement40 (19%)
Coronary artery bypass grafting28 (13%)
Mitral valve repair3 (1%)
Ascending aorta replacement2 (1%)
Aortic valve repair1 (0.5%)
Euroscore II (%)5.68 (3.55–11.46)
Left ventricular ejection fraction (%)60 (50–64)
Peak aortic valve gradient (mmHg)67 (53–76)
Mean aortic valve gradient (mmHg)41 (30–47)
Aortic valve area (cm2)0.8 (0.6–0.9)
Maximum aortic annulus diameter (mm)27 (25–28)
Minimum aortic annulus diameter (mm)21 (19–23)
Aortic annulus area (mm2)447 (402–512)
Aortic annulus perimeter (mm2)76 (72–80)
Sino-tubular junction diameter (mm)28 (26–31)
Systolic Pulmonary artery pressure (mmHg)43 (35–58)
Moderate/severe Pulmonary artery Hypertension 22 (10%)
Table 2. Intra and periprocedural characteristics.
Table 2. Intra and periprocedural characteristics.
CharacteristicsOverall (n = 213)TA-TAVI (n = 180)TA-TMVI (n = 39)
TA-TAVI164 (77%)164 (91%)-
TA-ViV-TAVI10 (6%)10 (6%)-
TA ViV-TMVI 30 (14%)-30 (77%)
TA-TAVI + ViV-TMVI6 (3%)6 (3%)6 (15%)
TA-ViR-TMVI3 (1%)-3 (8%)
Valve type
Sapien 3124 (57%)102 (57%)22 (56%)
Sapien 3 Ultra88 (40%)75 (42%)13 (33%)
Sapien XT7 (3%)3 (2%)4 (10%)
Valve size26 (23–29)26 (23–26)29 (26–29)
Valve size distribution
20 mm2 (1%)2 (1%)0 (0%)
23 mm60 (27%)59 (33%)1 (3%)
26 mm96 (44%)86 (48%)10 (26%)
29 mm61 (29%)33 (18%)28 (72%)
Procedural time (min)106 (88–128)107 (88–128)105 (94–129)
Valve malposition0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
Valve thrombosis1 (1%)1 (1%)0 (0%)
LVOT obstruction0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
Intraprocedural PCI8 (4%)8 (4%)0 (0%)
Non-planned intraprocedural PCI4 (2%)4 (2%)0 (0%)
Staged PCI during the index hospitalization11 (5%)10 (6%)1 (3%)
Coronary artery obstruction5 (2%)5 (3%)0 (0%)
Aortic dissection0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
Cardiac tamponade2 (1%)2 (1%)0 (0%)
Conversion to sternotomy1 (1%)1 (1%)0 (0%)
Pacemaker implantation6 (3%)5 (3%)1 (3%)
Re-exploration for bleeding6 (3%)3 (2%)3 (8%)
Cerebro-vascular accident2 (1%)1 (1%)1 (3%)
Vascular complication11 (5%)9 (5%)2 (5%)
Mechanical ventilation, hours8 (6–8)8 (6–8)6 (5–8)
Prolonged mechanical ventilation > 24 h 5 (2%)5 (3%)0 (0%)
Intensive Care Unit stay, days1 [1–2]1 [1–2]1 [1–3]
Hospital stay, days7 [6–9]7 [5–9]7 [6–10]
Troponin peak (ng/L)937 [483–5932]989 [505–6246]686 [418–5032]
Periprocedural myocardial injury98 (46%)84 (47%)14 (36%)
Acute kidney injury48 (23%)39 (22%)9 (23%)
Stage 141 (19%)33 (18%)8 (20%)
Stage 22 (1%)2 (1%)0 (0%)
Stage 35 (2%)4 (2) 1 (3%)
Stage 40 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
Bowel ischemia1 (1%)1 1%)0 (0%)
Red blood cell transfusion54 (25%)41 (23%)13 (33%)
Left ventricular ejection fraction at discharge (%)56 (50–60)60 (55–60)53 (45–60)
Aortic Perivalvular leak at discharge23 (11%)23 (13%)-
Mild21 (10%)21 (12%)-
Moderate2 (1%)2 (1%)-
Severe0 (0%)0 (0%)-
Mitral Perivalvular leak at discharge5 (2%)-5 (13%)
Mild3 (1%)-3 (8%)
Moderate2 (1%)-2 (5%)
Severe0 (0%)-0 (0%)
Intra-procedural mortality0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
In-hospital mortality3 (1%)3 (2%)0 (0%)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Galeone, A.; Perrone, F.; Pesarini, G.; Ribichini, F.L.; Di Gaetano, R.; Luciani, G.B.; Onorati, F. Ten-Year Experience with a Transapical Approach for Transcatheter Aortic and Mitral Valve Implantation. J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 2024, 11, 201. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11070201

AMA Style

Galeone A, Perrone F, Pesarini G, Ribichini FL, Di Gaetano R, Luciani GB, Onorati F. Ten-Year Experience with a Transapical Approach for Transcatheter Aortic and Mitral Valve Implantation. Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease. 2024; 11(7):201. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11070201

Chicago/Turabian Style

Galeone, Antonella, Fabiola Perrone, Gabriele Pesarini, Flavio Luciano Ribichini, Renato Di Gaetano, Giovanni Battista Luciani, and Francesco Onorati. 2024. "Ten-Year Experience with a Transapical Approach for Transcatheter Aortic and Mitral Valve Implantation" Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease 11, no. 7: 201. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11070201

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop