Transcaval Versus Transaxillary TAVR in Contemporary Practice: A Propensity-Weighted Analysis
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 24, 2025
Upper-extremity Approach for Secondary Access in Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
Published on: August 8, 2025
Robert J Lederman1, Vasilis C Babaliaros2, John C Lisko2
1Cardiovascular Branch, Division of Intramural Research, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Objectives:
The aim of this study was to compare transcaval and transaxillary artery access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) at experienced medical centers in contemporary practice.
Background:
There are no systematic comparisons of transcaval and transaxillary TAVR access routes.
Methods:
Eight experienced centers contributed local data collected for the STS/ACC TVT Registry (Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry) between 2017 and 2020. Outcomes after transcaval and axillary/subclavian (transaxillary) access were adjusted for baseline imbalances using doubly robust (inverse propensity weighting plus regression) estimation and compared.
Results:
Transcaval access was used in 238 procedures and transaxillary access in 106; for comparison, transfemoral access was used in 7,132 procedures. Risk profiles were higher among patients selected for nonfemoral access but similar among patients requiring transcaval and transaxillary access. Stroke and transient ischemic attack were 5-fold less common after transcaval than transaxillary access (2.5% vs 13.2%; OR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.06-0.72; P = 0.014) compared with transfemoral access (1.7%). Major and life-threatening bleeding (Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 ≥ type 2) were comparable (10.0% vs 13.2%; OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.26-1.66; P = 0.38) compared with transfemoral access (3.5%), as was blood transfusion (19.3% vs 21.7%; OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.49-2.33; P = 0.87) compared with transfemoral access (7.1%). Vascular complications, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and survival were similar between transcaval and transaxillary access. More patients were discharged directly home and without stroke or transient ischemic attack after transcaval than transaxillary access (87.8% vs 62.3%; OR: 5.19; 95% CI: 2.45-11.0; P < 0.001) compared with transfemoral access (90.3%).
Conclusions:
Patients undergoing transcaval TAVR had lower rates of stroke and similar bleeding compared with transaxillary access in a contemporary experience from 8 US centers. Both approaches had more complications than transfemoral access. Transcaval TAVR access may offer an attractive option.
