Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 7, 2025
Technique and Patient Selection Criteria of Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy for Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement
Published on: March 26, 2018
Unilateral-access vs. bilateral-access in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A slim fit approach
Ana Rita Pereira1, Ahmed A M Al Jaff2, Jose Montero-Cabezas2
1Department of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; Department of Cardiology, Hospital Garcia de Orta, Almada, Portugal.
Background:
Vascular complications remain prevalent on transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) with a significant proportion related to the secondary arterial access. We hypothesized that placing the second sheath ipsilateral and distal to the delivery sheath could reduce vascular complications with similar safety and efficacy.
Objectives:
Comparing vascular complications and clinical outcomes when placing the secondary arterial sheath in the ipsilateral (unilateral-access) versus in the contralateral (bilateral-access) femoral artery during TF-TAVR.
Methods:
Patients who underwent TF-TAVR using unilateral-access as first-choice approach were retrospectively compared with a contemporaneous bilateral-access group. The primary endpoint was the incidence of vascular complications related to femoral access according to the VARC-3 criteria. A propensity-score analysis was performed accounting for the differences in clinical, vascular, and procedural characteristics.
Results:
A total of 217 patients were included, of whom 150 (69.1 %) underwent TF-TAVR through bilateral- and 67 (30.9 %) through unilateral-access. Vascular complications occurred in 16.0 % of the bilateral-access group and 10.4 % of the unilateral-access group (p = 0.280). The unilateral-access group achieved high procedural success with normalization of peak aortic velocity and low rates of paravalvular leaks, valve migration and pacemaker requirement. After propensity-score matching, the overall complications rate was superior in the bilateral-access group (54.4 % vs 35.1 %, p = 0.038) due to a trend of higher vascular complications (26.3 % vs 12.3 %, p = 0.058) and a significant higher occurrence of bleeding complications (17.5 % vs 1.8 %, p = 0.008).
Conclusions:
Unilateral-access TF-TAVR is feasible, safe, and potentially enhances procedural efficiency and patient satisfaction while maintaining the capacity for bailout interventions in managing vascular complications.
