Search

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a viable alternative to palliation in patients with severe aortic stenosis. We compared general anesthesia to conscious sedation for TAVI procedures with respect to post operative morbidity, hospital length of stay, and financial burden., Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of prospectively collected data in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI procedures from 2012 to 2017. Patients were matched based on age and sex and classed into either general anesthesia or conscious sedation groups respectively. Conscious sedation was provided with a dexmedetomidine infusion, and patients in general anesthesia group received a standard induction, tracheal intubation, and maintenance with sevoflurane. The hospital case costs were compared between the two groups before and after adjustment for inflation., Results: We matched 124 pairs for a total of 248 patients. Both groups were similar with respect to demographic data, past medical history, medications, and intraoperative characteristics. There was no difference in postoperative morbidity and mortality between the two groups. The median hospital length of stay was 5 [interquartile range (IQR): 3, 10] and 7 (IQR: 4, 12) days, P=0.01, and after adjustment for inflation, the total hospital case costs were $48,984 (IQR: $44,802, $61,438) Canadian (CAD) vs. $55,333 (IQR: $46,832, $68,702) CAD, P=0.01, in the conscious sedation and general anesthesia groups, respectively., Conclusions: Advancements in TAVI technologies, conscious sedation and a collaborative, multidisciplinary team approach reduces overall length of hospital stay and procedure costs., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-23-1739/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2024 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.)

Background: In transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI), which approach has lower vascular access site complications between the open puncture (OP) and percutaneous puncture (PP) approaches is still controversial. Moreover, few studies have analyzed risk factors for vascular access site complications in TF-TAVI. This study aimed to compare vascular access site complications between the OP and PP approaches in patients undergoing TF-TAVI and access risk factors for vascular access site complications., Methods: Three hundred fifty-one patients who underwent TF-TAVI via the PP (n=251) and OP (n=100) were retrospectively examined., Results: Incidence of vascular access site complications was 7.0% in the OP group and 8.4% in the PP group (P=0.828). Two deaths from vascular access site complications occurred in the PP group. After performing inverse probability weighting (IPW), regression analysis showed that PP was associated with a significantly higher odds of vascular access site complications [odds ratio =2.033; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.397-2.958; P<0.001]. Common femoral artery (CFA) depth (hazard ratio =1.04; 95% CI: 1.000-1.070; P=0.045) and sheath/CFA diameter ratio (hazard ratio =971; 95% CI: 22.6-41,700; P<0.001) were independent complication risk factors. In patients with CFA depth ≥35 mm, the incidence of vascular access site complications was higher with PP than OP. Sheath/CFA diameter ratio ≥0.9 was associated with increased risk of vascular injury with both approaches., Conclusions: The incidence of vascular access site complications in patients undergoing TF-TAVI was significantly lower with OP than PP after IPW. OP may be preferable when CFA depth is ≥35 mm. When the sheath/CFA diameter ratio is ≥0.9, approaches other than the TF approach should be considered., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-23-999/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2023 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.)

Background: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MiAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) provide aortic valve replacement (AVR) by less invasive methods than conventional surgical AVR, by avoiding complete sternotomy. This study directly compares and analyses the available evidence for early outcomes between these two AVR methods., Methods: Electronic databases were searched from inception until August 2019 for studies comparing MiAVR to TAVI, according to predefined search criteria. Propensity-matched studies with sufficient data were included in a meta-analysis., Results: Eight studies with 9,744 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Analysis of risk-matched patients showed no difference in early mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI, 0.37-1.54, P=0.44). MiAVR had a signal towards lower rate of postoperative stroke, although this did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.42, 95% CI, 0.13-1.29, P=0.13). MiAVR had significantly lower rates of new pacemaker (PPM) requirement (OR 0.29, 95% CI, 0.16-0.52, P<0.0001) and postoperative aortic insufficiency (AI) or paravalvular leak (PVL) (OR 0.05, 95% CI, 0.01-0.20, P<0.0001) compared to TAVI, (OR 0.42, 95% CI, 0.13-1.29, P=0.13), while acute kidney injury (AKI) was higher in MiAVR compared to TAVI (11.1% vs . 5.2%, OR 2.28, 95% CI, 1.25-4.16, P=0.007)., Conclusions: In patients of equivalent surgical risk scores, MiAVR may be performed with lower rates of postoperative PPM requirement and AI/PVL, higher rates of AKI and no statistical difference in postoperative stroke or short-term mortality, compared to TAVI. Further prospective trials are needed to validate these results., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-20-2233). Dr. MN reports being an unpaid advisor and proctor for Edwards Lifesciences transcatheter aortic valve replacement. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2021 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.)

Background: Currently, two effective therapeutic options for severe aortic stenosis (AS) are available, one catheter-based [transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)], the other open surgical approach [surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)]. The COVID-19 pandemic has limited the availability of medical procedures. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to assess if this pandemic had any impact on the treatment strategy of severe AS in a single cardiac center., Methods: This study involved AS patients treated in 3-month periods (February through April) over 3 consecutive years 2018, 2019 [defined as COV(-) group] and 2020 [COV(+)]. We assessed if there were any differences regarding patients' clinical profile, applied therapeutic method, procedure complexity and early clinical outcomes., Results: In the years 2018 through 2019, approximately 50% of AS patients were treated classically (SAVR) while in 2020 this rate dropped to 34%. The preoperative clinical characteristic of TAVI subjects was comparable irrespective of the year. Regarding SAVR, more patients in COV(+) underwent urgent and more complex procedures. More of them were found in NYHA class III or IV, and had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (51.9%±14.4% vs. 58.3%±8.1%; P=0.021) than in COV(-) individuals. During the pandemic, a change in applied therapeutic methods and differences in patients' clinical profile did not have an unfavorable impact on in-hospital mortality (2.0% before vs. 3.6% during pandemic) and morbidity. Of note, intubation time and in-hospital stay were significantly shorter (P<0.05) in 2020 (4.2 hours and 7.5 days) than in the previous years (7.5 hours and 9.0 days, respectively)., Conclusions: The coronavirus pandemic has changed substantially the management of severe AS. The shift into less invasive treatment method of AS patients resulted in shortening of in-hospital stay without compromise of short-term outcomes., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-20-3025). KR serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Journal of Thoracic Disease from Aug 2019 to Jul 2021. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2021 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.)

Background: To improve periprocedural outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), transcatheter mechanical resection devices were tested for prior ablation of the aortic cusps., Methods: Three mechanical transcatheter resection devices were tested in a series of native porcine (n=30) and reassembled calcified human valves (n=54). The resection time, the resected valve area, the number of released cusps, and the degree of surrounding tissue damage were measured. Afterwards, postmortem transapical-transcatheter-resections of the aortic valve in two humans were performed., Results: In the native porcine hearts, the Aesculap II device demonstrated significantly shorter resection time compared to the R&R II and the Randstad devices (6.5±2.0 vs. 28.6±24.1 vs. 23.3±14.4 sec; P=0.001). However, it created more lesions in the surrounding tissue (P=0.002). The R&R II achieved a smaller number of resected cusps than the other two devices (2.7±0.7 vs. 1.1±0.7 vs. 2.4±0.5; P<0.001, respectively). It also resected a smaller area of the aortic valve (306.5±149.2 vs. 106.7±29.6 vs. 256.8±81.3 mm2; P=0.09) but a larger mean area of the resected fragments (110.3±41.5 vs. 160.7±29.6 vs. 111.5±43.9 mm2; P=0.01). The resection of the reassembled human valves demonstrated the same results between the devices regarding resection time (P=0.001) and resected area (P=0.016), but not fragment sizes (P=0.610). Finally, transapical-transcatheter-resection of aortic valve was performed in two cadavers., Conclusions: Transcatheter aortic valve resection is feasible with variable aortic leaflet resection times and mild risk of lesions of the surrounding tissue., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-20-2036). JS reports grants and personal fees from Edwards, grants, and personal fees from Medtronic, outside the submitted work; DF reports personal fees from Edwards, personal fees from Medtronic, outside the submitted work; GL reports personal fees from Edwards, personal fees from Medtronic, personal fees from Abbot, outside the submitted work. The authors have no other conflicts of interests., (2020 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.)

Background: This study compares two latest-generation self-expanding transcatheter heart valves (THV), the supra-annular ACURATE neo (Boston Scientific) and the intra-annular Centera THV (Edwards Lifesciences)., Methods: In this single center observational cohort trial 317 patients treated with the ACURATE neo and 78 patients treated with the Centera TVH were included. The main endpoints were device success and the early safety endpoint at 30 days., Results: Besides higher incidence of diabetes mellitus and higher body mass index in patients treated with the ACURATE neo THV, there were no baseline differences between the groups. Device success was similar in both groups (neo: 91.8% vs. Centera: 93.6%; P=0.598), with numerically higher rates of moderate to severe paravalvular leakage in the ACURATE neo group (4.7% vs. 1.3%; P=0.214). At 30 days all-cause mortality rates were low in both groups (0.3% vs. 0%; P=0.620) and no difference occurred in the early safety at 30 days (19.3% vs. 16.7%; P=0.599). However, all-cause stroke rates were significantly higher in patients treated with the Centera THV (6.4 vs. 1.6%; P=0.015)., Conclusions: The ACURATE neo and the Centera THV show low mortality rates as well as comparable, favorable hemodynamics. The finding of higher stroke rates at 30 days with the repositionable Centera SE-THV needs further assessment., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-20-1700). AMK reports that he is a proctor and consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2020 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the gold standard for high-risk severe aortic stenosis. However, the experience of treating aortic regurgitation (AR) with this technology is still limited. Previously, we have demonstrated excellent 1-year outcomes of transapical TAVI with J-Valve TM (JieCheng Medical Technology Co., Ltd., Suzhou, China) in treating predominant AR, while the mid-term outcomes up to 4 years have never been reported., Methods: Transapical TAVI with J-Valve TM to treat predominant AR was performed in 47 patients in Zhongshan Hospital from May 2014 through October 2018. Procedural and clinical outcomes with follow-up up to 4 years were analyzed using Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria (VARC-2)., Results: All patients (age 73.7±7.9 years) were considered to be prohibitive or high-risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) (logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation, 21.1% to 44.4%; mean, 24.3%±5.1%) after evaluated by a multidisciplinary heart team. Transapical implantations were successful in all patients. The clinical outcomes of the entire cohort in the latest follow-up (371 to 1,968 days, median 574 days) included all-cause mortality (6.4%), disabling stroke (2.3%), new permanent pacemaker (6.8%) and valve-related re-intervention (0). Paravalvular leak (PVL) was rate as none or trace in 37 of 44 and mild in 7 of 44 patients at the latest follow-up. Mean transvalvular gradient was favorable after valve implantation during follow-up at 9.3±2.5 mmHg., Conclusions: This study revealed that, transapical TAVI with J-Valve TM for treating AR has encouraging mid-term outcomes, and the advantages at one year demonstrated in previous study can be maintained through 4 years., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2020 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.)

Background: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is one of the most common surgeries performed in cardiac surgery operating rooms. We present actual, real life trends from the last 10 years for AVR interventions based on a multicentre National Registry of Cardiac Surgery Database., Methods: The study population consisted of all 50,846 consecutive adult patients who underwent AVR between January 2006 and August 2016 in all cardiac surgery units in Poland. The main outcome measures were changes in the number of valves, characteristics of valves, operative details, and in-hospital mortality. Analysis consisted of all aortic valve (AV) procedures, including isolated AV surgery, combination procedures and patients who had a prior valve operation., Results: In last 10 years, the number of procedures increased by 46%. Isolated surgical AVR was performed in 61.2%, AVR + coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in 23.9%, AVR + mitral valve replacement (MVR) in 7%, and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in 2.3% of patients. The mean patient age increased significantly from 61.4 years in 2006 to 66.1 years in 2016. Aortic stenosis was diagnosed in 73.4%, severe aortic insufficiency in 15.8% of cases. The most common valve pathology was calcification. Congenital valve dysfunction was diagnosed in 3.7% of cases. There was a 33.7% increase of bioprosthesis, and the most common implanted bioprosthesis was the Hancock II. The most common implanted mechanical prosthesis was the St. Jude Medical Mechanical Valve. In-hospital mortality decreased significantly over the 10-year period in all AV procedures from 10.9% in 2006 to 8.3% in 2016. Mean in-hospital mortality was: 4.0% in isolated surgical AVR, 5.4% in TAVI, 6.8% in AVR + CABG, 9.8% in AVR + MVR, 17.2% in AVR + MVR + CABG., Conclusions: In the last ten years, the number of AV procedure has doubled. Mortality was significantly lower with all types of AV procedure despite very rapid aging of AVR patients. TAVI procedure rapidly grew in popularity. There is significant increase in the use of bioprosthesis., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Background: Marital status has been described to affect outcome in cardiovascular diseases, however its impact on patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is unknown. We therefore aimed to assess the impact of marital status in patients undergoing TAVI., Methods: Between 2011 and 2015, 779 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI with known marital status were included in the analysis. The primary endpoint of the study was the composite of cardiac death and readmission for congestive heart failure (CHF) at one year., Results: Mean age was 80.7±5.9 years, 47.8% were female and median logistic EuroScore was 12.7% (8.13-19.39%). Forty-three point three percent of patients were not married. Compared to married patients, unmarried patients were older (82.4±5.5 vs . 79.5±5.8 years; P<0.001), more often female (73.3% vs . 28.3%; P<0.001), presented with a higher logistic EuroScore [13.1% (9.5-21.5%) vs . 11.7% (7.0-18.5%); P<0.001], and more symptomatic with New York Heart Association functional class III/IV (69.7% vs . 60.6%; P=0.009). At one year the incidence of the primary endpoint was higher in unmarried patients (18.7% vs . 12.0%; P=0.011) which was mainly driven by more admissions for CHF (14.1% vs . 7.8%; P=0.007). After multivariable adjustment, marital status was borderline significant regarding CHF (HR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.37-1.02; P=0.06) but not the primary endpoint., Conclusions: Unmarried patients undergoing TAVI showed a higher incidence of cardiac death or CHF at one year. Hence, marital status should be taken into account in patients with aortic stenosis subjected to TAVI. Whether closer monitoring and intensified medical follow-up improves outcomes remains to be investigated in future studies., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Background: Minimally invasive surgical techniques pose alternatives to conventional surgery for the treatment of aortic stenosis (AS). We present a Bayesian network analysis comparing Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), sutureless (SL-AVR) and conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR)., Methods: Electronic searches of databases were conducted and seven two-arm randomized-controlled trials and 25 propensity-score-matched studies comparing clinical outcomes of TAVI, SL-AVR and CAVR for treatment of AS were identified. Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo modelling was used to analyze clinical outcomes., Results: The analysis included 16,432 patients who underwent TAVI [7,056], SL-AVR [1,238] or CAVR [8,138]. Compared to CAVR, TAVI and SL-AVR were associated with reduced postoperative major bleeding of 59% (OR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.28-0.59) and 44% (OR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.30-0.99) respectively. TAVI had a 41% reduction in postoperative myocardial infarction (OR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.40-0.86) and SL-AVR had a 40% reduction in postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42-0.86). Compared to TAVI, CAVR and SL-AVR had a reduction in moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation of 89% (OR 0.11, 95% CI: 0.07-0.16) and 92% (OR 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03-0.17). CAVR had a 67% decreased postoperative permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation compared to TAVI (OR 0.33, 95% CI: 0.24-0.45) and a 63% reduction compared to SL-AVR (OR 0.37, 95% CI: 0.22-0.61). There were no differences in 30-day mortality or postoperative stroke between the groups., Conclusions: In selected patients, minimally invasive surgical interventions including TAVI and SL-AVR for severe AS are viable alternatives to conventional surgery. However, TAVI is associated with increased paravalvular regurgitation, whereas TAVI and SL-AVR are associated with increased conduction disturbances compared to CAVR., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as the standard treatment option for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis who are considered intermediate to high surgical risk. Nonetheless, optimal clinical outcomes following the procedure require careful consideration of procedural risk by the Heart Team. While this decision-making could be supported through the development of TAVI-specific clinical prediction models (CPMs), current models remain suboptimal. In this review paper, we aimed to outline the performance of several recently derived TAVI CPMs that predict mortality and present some future research directions. We discuss how the existing risk models have achieved only moderate discrimination but highlight that some of the models are well calibrated across multiple populations, indicating the feasibility of using them to aid benchmarking analyses. Moreover, we suggest that future work should focus on the development of CPMs in cohorts of patients with aortic stenosis that include multiple treatment modalities. Supported by appropriate modelling of 'what if' scenarios, this would allow the Heart Teams to predict and compare outcomes across surgical aortic valve replacement, medical management and TAVI, thereby allowing one to personalise treatment decisions to the individual patient. Such a goal could be facilitated by considering novel risk factors, shifting the focus to endpoints other than mortality, and through collaborative efforts to combine the evidence base and existing models across wider populations., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is now the accepted standard of care for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at elevated risk for conventional surgical valve replacement. Currently, societal guidelines propose the use of dual antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of thromboembolic events after TAVI in patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation. This strategy is empiric and largely based on expert consensus extrapolated from the arena of percutaneous coronary intervention. In this review, we explore the rational for using antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant strategies after TAVI, review current guidelines and the evidence underpinning them, and detail the on-going randomized trials that will shape future recommendations on this important issue., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: D Mylotte: Consultant and Proctor for Medtronic and Microport. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) has historically been recommended prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Pre-implantation BAV (pBAV) creates fractures at the level of calcified leaflets, thereby facilitating delivery of the transcatheter valve system across the diseased aortic valve and, enhances prosthesis implantation and expansion within the calcified aortic valve annulus. New device designs, lower profile delivery systems and increasing operator experience have enabled direct-TAVI (without pBAV), and its appeal amongst TAVI operators enhanced the dissemination of a direct TAVI approach across many centres. In this review, we discuss contemporary evidence that inform the debate on the need for routine pBAV for TAVI candidates and present a framework that may assist operators in selecting patients for pBAV., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as the gold standard technique for all patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at elevated surgical risk. Much progress has been made to reduce procedural complications and improve patient outcomes. The impressive results of contemporary TAVI can be attributed to a variety of factors, including improving operator experience, pre-operative patient screening, and developments in transcatheter heart valve and delivery system technology. Despite these advances, serious procedural complications continue to occur and there remain some anatomical subsets and patient groups to whom TAVI technology has not been expanded. Herein we discuss these unmet needs in TAVI., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: D Mylotte is Consultant and Proctor for Medtronic and Microport. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Cerebrovascular events following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is one of the most devastating complications. Several studies with magnetic resonance or cerebral filters have demonstrated the universal brain embolization after TAVI, in the majority of patients clinically silent. Embolic protection devices (EPD) have been developed as a mechanical barrier to prevent these emboli to reach cerebral vasculature and potentially reduce neurological events. We review the current evidence about EPD in relation to histopathological and cerebral imaging findings and neurological events., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the standard therapy for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis (AS). TAVI-outcomes are widely investigated in comparison to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), but less is known about infectious complications after TAVI. We aimed to compare early and mid-term infectious outcomes of patients undergoing TAVI or SAVR., Methods: The present study is a prospective single-centre study including 200 consecutive patients between 06/2014-03/2015 undergoing TAVI (either transfemoral or transapical and transaortic, n=47+53=100) or SAVR (either isolated or concomitant with CABG, n=52+48=100). The mean age and log. EuroSCORE were significantly different between both groups (81±6 versus 69±11 years, P<0.001 and 23.1%±13.8% versus 8.7%±9.5%, P<0.001). Primary endpoints included wound healing disorders, respiratory and urinary tract infections and incidence of endocarditis or sepsis within hospital stay. Secondary endpoints included infectious parameters, infectious related rehospitalisation and 2-year mortality., Results: Primary endpoints showed no difference in overall TAVI- versus SAVR-groups regarding respiratory- (14% versus 19%, P=0.45), urinary-tract (7% versus 4%, P=0.54) infections, sepsis (5% versus 6%, P=1.0), endocarditis (0% versus 1%, P=1.0) or 30-day mortality (10% versus 4%, P=0.09), except for wound disorders, which were significantly lower in the TAVI-group (1% versus 8%, P=0.035), respectively. Secondary endpoints reported no difference regarding infectious related rehospitalisation (4% versus 4%, P=1.0), but significantly higher 2-year mortality (28% versus 16%, P=0.048) in the TAVI-group., Conclusions: So far, little has been studied about infectious complications after TAVI. This study reports no difference between the overall TAVI and SAVR groups regarding infectious complications. However, SAVR group show more wound healing disorders but less mortality than TAVI group., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: This work was presented at the 65th annual meeting of the European Society of Cardiovascular Surgery, April 2016, Belgrade, Serbia.

Transfemoral access is currently the standard and preferred access site for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), though novel approaches are emerging to expand treatment options for the increasing numbers of patients with a contraindication for the traditional route. Previous publications have provided comparisons between two TAVR access sites, primarily transfemoral versus one of the novel approaches, while others have compared three or four novel approaches. The aim of this report is to provide a comprehensive summary of publications that analyse and compare the six non-transfemoral access sites currently described in the literature. These include the transapical, transaortic, axillary/subclavian, brachiocephalic, transcarotid, and transcaval approaches. Though there remains little consensus as to the superiority or non-inferiority of TAVR approaches, and there has yet to be randomized clinical trials to support published findings, with careful patient and procedural selection, outcomes for novel approaches have been reported to be comparable to standard transfemoral access when performed by skilled physicians. As such, choice of procedure is primarily based on registry data and the judgement of surgical teams as to which approach is best in each individual case. As TAVR continues to be an increasingly widespread treatment, search for the optimal access site will grow, and focus should be placed on the importance of educating surgeons as to all possible approaches so they may review and chose the most appropriate technique for a given patient., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a rapidly evolving therapeutic modality currently available for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) that are unsuitable for surgery because of technical/anatomical issues or high-estimated surgical risk. Transfemoral approach is the preferred TAVI delivery route when possible. Alternative non-transfemoral access options include transaortic, trans-subclavian and transapical access. Other approaches are also feasible (transcarotid, transcaval, and antegrade aortic) but are restricted to operators and hospitals with experience. The peculiarities of each of the vascular approaches designed for TAVI delivery make it necessary to carefully assess patient's atherosclerotic load and location, arterial size and tortuosity, and presence of mural thrombus. Several clinical trials are currently ongoing and in the near future the indications for these approaches will likely be better defined and extended to a broader spectrum of TAVI candidates., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Calcific aortic stenosis is the most frequent manifestation of valvular heart disease. The preferred treatment for patients of all age groups is surgical aortic valve replacement. Recently, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the standard of care for patients that are deemed to be at high risk for open heart surgery. The most common access route for TAVI is the retrograde transfemoral (TF) approach, followed by the antegrade transapical (TA) approach. Both access routes have distinct indications. While the TF route is least invasive and the access of choice at most centers, the apical route is used complementary in patients with poor femoral access. In addition, the TA approach holds various benefits such as a short distance from the operator to the annulus facilitating exact positioning of the valve and the possibility to accommodate larger sheaths. Furthermore, the TA approach not only provides direct access to the aortic valve but also the mitral valve allowing for a wide range of interventions. Various apical closure devices are currently being developed under the premise of increasing overall safety of the TA-TAVI approach by further standardizing the procedure, alleviating left ventricular access and minimizing the risk of complications, such as apical bleeding. The aim of this article is to give an overview of current devices for apical closure. The ideal apical closure device should be easy to put in place, leave a minimum of foreign material, provide complete hemostasis and have a minimal risk of displacement. So far the range of commercially available devices in Europe is very limited with only one CE-certified device on the market and one device that is expected to receive CE-certification soon. Off-the-shelf closure devices could help flatten the initial operator learning curve and facilitate a safe apical access, ultimately leading to an entirely percutaneous TA-TAVI approach.

Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is nowadays a routine therapy for elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and high perioperative risk. With growing experience, further development of the devices, and the expansion to "intermediate-risk" patients, there is increasing interest in performing this procedure under conscious sedation (TAVI-S) rather than the previously favoured approach of general anesthesia (TAVI-GA). The proposed benefits of TAVI-S include; reduced procedure time, shorter intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, reduced need for intraprocedural vasopressor support, and the potential to perform the procedure without the direct presence of an anesthetist for cost-saving reasons. To date, no randomized trial data exists. We reviewed 13 non-randomized studies/registries reporting data from 6,718 patients undergoing TAVI (3,227 performed under sedation). Patient selection, study methods, and endpoints have differed considerably between published studies. Reported rates of in-hospital and longer-term mortality are similar for both groups. Up to 17% of patients undergoing TAVI-S require conversion to general anesthesia during the procedure, primarily due to vascular complications, and urgent intubation is frequently associated with hemodynamic instability. Procedure related factors, including hypotension, may compound preexisting age-specific renal impairment and enhance the risk of acute kidney injury. Hypotonia of the hypopharyngeal muscles in elderly patients, intraprocedural hypercarbia, and certain anesthetic drugs, may increase the aspiration risk in sedated patients. General anesthesia and conscious sedation have both been used successfully to treat patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI with similar reported short and long-term mortality outcomes. The authors believe that the significant incidence of complications and unplanned conversion to general anesthesia during TAVI-S mandates the start-to-finish presence of an experienced cardiac anesthetist in order to optimize patient outcomes. Good quality randomized data is needed to determine the optimal anesthetic regimen for patients undergoing TAVI.

Even though experience and techniques have constantly improved over the last years, peri- and postprocedural complications in high risk TAVI-collectives remain a major issue affecting outcome and survival. Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent complication after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and effects outcome and survival. However, the definition of AKI in published studies dealing with the phenomenon of AKI after TAVI varies widely and lacks standardization. This Review aims to present an overview over the current literature concerning AKI after TAVI with regard to the definition of AKI, the impact of AKI on mortality and potential risk factors for renal impairment after TAVI.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has gained widespread acceptance as a treatment option for patients at high risk for conventional aortic valve replacement. The most commonly used access site for TAVI is the common femoral artery. Yet, in a significant number of patients the transfemoral access is not suitable due to peripheral vascular disease of the lower extremity. In these cases the transaxillary approach can serve as an alternative implantation route. By considering the anatomical requirements and providing an adequate endovascular "safety-net" during the procedure the transaxillary TAVI approach results in excellent procedural and clinical outcome. However, whether the transaxillary access for TAVI is superior to other non-transfemoral approaches (e.g., transapical or direct aortic) needs to be studied in the future in a prospective randomized trial.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been developed recently for patients with high morbidities and who are believed to be not tolerate standard surgical aortic valve replacement. Nevertheless, the TAVI is associated with complications such as potential obstruction of coronary ostia, mitral valve insufficiency, and stent migration although it seems promising. Impairment of the coronary blood flow after TAVI is catastrophic and it was believed to be associated with the close position of the coronary orifice and the aortic leaflets and valve stent. However, few data was available as to the anatomic relationship between valve stent and aortic root anatomic structures including the coronary arterial ostia, aortic leaflets., Methods: The aortic roots were observed in 40 hearts specimens. The width of aortic leaflet, height of aortic sinus annulus to the sinutubular junction (STJ), distance between aortic sinus annulus to its corresponding coronary ostia, and coronary arterial ostia to its corresponding STJ level were measured. Moreover, the relationships of valve stent, aortic leaflets and coronary ostia before/post stent implantation and after the open of aorta were evaluated respectively., Results: Approximate three quarters of the coronary ostia were located below the STJ level. The mean distances from left, right and posterior aortic sinus annulus to the related STJ level was comparable, which was 18.5±2.7, 18.9±2.6, 18.7±2.6 mm, respectively. Meanwhile, the height of left and right aortic sinus annulus to its corresponding coronary ostia was 16.6±2.8 and 17.2±3.1 mm for left and right side respectively., Conclusions: Most of the coronary ostia were located below the STJ level and could be covered by the leaflets. This highlights the need of modified stents to prevent occlusion of coronary flow after TAVI.