Transcarotid Compared With Other Alternative Access Routes for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background The optimal access for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) who are not candidates for a transfemoral approach has not been elucidated. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety, feasibility, and early clinical outcomes of transcarotid TAVR compared with thoracic approaches. Methods and Results From a multicenter consecutive cohort of 329 alternative-access TAVR patients (2012-2017), we identified 101 patients who underwent transcarotid TAVR and 228 patients who underwent a transapical or transaortic TAVR. Preprocedural success and 30-day clinical outcomes were compared using multivariable propensity score analysis to account for between-group differences in baseline characteristics. All transcarotid cases were performed under general anesthesia, mainly using the left common carotid artery (97%). Propensity-matched groups had similar rates of 30-day all-cause mortality (2.1% versus 4.6%; P=0.37), stroke (2.1% versus 3.5%; P=0.67; transcarotid versus transapical/transaortic, respectively), new pacemaker implantation, and major vascular complications. Transcarotid TAVR was associated with significantly less new-onset atrial fibrillation (3.2% versus 19.0%; P=0.002), major or life-threatening bleeding (4.3% versus 19.9%; P=0.002), acute kidney injury (none versus 12.1%; P=0.002), and shorter median length of hospital stay (6 versus 8 days; P<0.001). Conclusions Transcarotid vascular access for TAVR is safe and feasible and is associated with encouraging short-term clinical outcomes. Our data suggest a clinical benefit of transcarotid TAVR with respect to atrial fibrillation, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, and length of stay compared with the more invasive transapical or transaortic strategies. Randomized studies are required to ascertain whether transcarotid TAVR yields equivalent results to other alternative vascular access routes.