Search

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has replaced surgical aortic valve replacement as the new gold standard in elderly patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. However, alongside this novel approach, new complications emerged that require swift diagnosis and adequate management. Vascular access marks the first step in a TAVR procedure. There are several possible access sites available for TAVR, including the transfemoral approach as well as transaxillary/subclavian, transcarotid, transapical, and transcaval. Most cases are primarily performed through a transfemoral approach, while other access routes are mainly conducted in patients not suitable for transfemoral TAVR. As vascular access is achieved primarily by large bore sheaths, vascular complications are one of the major concerns during TAVR. With rising numbers of TAVR being performed, the focus on prevention and successful management of vascular complications will be of paramount importance to lower morbidity and mortality of the procedures. Herein, we aimed to review the most common vascular complications associated with TAVR and summarize their diagnosis, management, and prevention of vascular complications in TAVR.

Background: Younger patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis are a particularly challenging collective with regard to the choice of intervention. High-risk patients younger than 75 years of age are often eligible for both the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and the isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (iSAVR). Data on the outcomes of both interventions in this set of patients are scarce. Methods: One hundred and forty-four propensity score-matched patients aged 75 years or less who underwent TAVR or iSAVR at the Hietzing Heart Center in Vienna, Austria, were included in the study. The mean age was 68.9 years (TAVR 68.7 vs. SAVR 67.6 years, p = 0.190) and the average EuroSCORE II was 5.4% (TAVR 4.3 [3.2%] vs. iSAVR 6.4 (4.3%), p = 0.194). Results: Postprocedural adverse event data showed higher rates of newly acquired atrial fibrillation (6.9% vs. 19.4%, p = 0.049), prolonged ventilation (2.8% vs. 25.0%, p &lt, 0.001) and multi-organ failure (0% vs. 6.9%) in the surgical cohort. The in-hospital and 30-day mortality was significantly higher for iSAVR (1.4% vs. 13.9%, p = 0.012, 12.5% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.009, respectively). The long-term survival (median follow-up 5.0 years (2.2–14.1 years)) of patients treated with the surgical approach was superior to that of patients undergoing TAVR (p &lt, 0.001). Conclusion: Although the survival analysis revealed a higher in-hospital and 30-day survival rate for high-risk patients aged ≤75 years who underwent TAVR, iSAVR was associated with a significantly higher long-term survival rate.