Abstract
BACKGROUND: In patients not suitable for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), several access strategies can be chosen. AIM: To evaluate the use and patient outcomes of transaxillary (TAx), transapical (TA), and transaortic (TAo) as alternative access for TAVI in Germany; to further evaluate surgical cutdown vs. percutaneous TAx access. METHODS: All patients entered the German Aortic Valve Registry (GARY) between 2011 and 2019 who underwent non-transfemoral TAVI were included in this analysis. Patients with TA, TAo, or TAx TAVI were compared using a weighted propensity score model. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis was performed for TAx regarding the percutaneous or surgical cutdown approach. RESULTS: Overall, 9686 patients received a non-transfemoral access. A total of 8918 patients (92.1%) underwent TA, 398 (4.1%) TAo, and 370 (3.8%) TAx approaches. Within the TAx subgroup, 141 patients (38.1%) received subclavian cutdown, while 200 (54.1%) underwent a percutaneous approach. The TA patients had a significantly lower 30-day survival than TAx patients (TA 90.92% vs. TAx 95.59%, p = 0.006; TAo 92.22% vs. TAx 95.59%, p = 0.102). Comparing percutaneous and cutdown TAx approaches, no significant differences were seen. However, more vascular complications occurred (TA 1.8%, TAo 2.4%, TAx 12.2%; p < .001), and the hospital length of stay was shorter (TA 12.9 days, TAo 14.1 days, TAx 12 days; p < .001) after TAx access. CONCLUSION: It may be reasonable to consider TAx access first in patients not suitable for TF-TAVI, because the 30-day survival was higher compared with TA access and the 1-year survival was higher compared with TAo access. It remains important for the heart teams to offer alternative access modalities for patients not amenable to the standard TF-TAVI approaches.