Transseptal antegrade transcatheter aortic valve replacement for patients with no other access approach—A contemporary experience

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and outcomes in patients undergoing transvenous transseptal (TS) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: TS approach for TAVR was abandoned in favor of retrograde transfemoral, transaortic, or transapical approaches. TS TAVR may still be warranted in patients for whom no other approach is feasible. METHODS: Observational consecutive case series at a single center, to evaluate technical outcomes in inoperable patients with aortic stenosis who had contraindications for other approaches and who underwent TAVR via a transvenous TS antegrade approach using the Edwards-Sapien (ES) valve. RESULTS: Over a 4-month period, 9 patients underwent TS TAVR with 26 mm (n = 4) and 23 mm (n = 5) ES valves. Mean age was 84.5 ± 6.6 years and Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was 7.8 ± 2.8%. Specific contraindications for other access included iliofemoral arterial diameter <7 mm in 9 (100%), porcelain aorta in 6 (66%) patients, multiple (≥2) sternotomies in 2 (22%) patients, severe pulmonary disease in 3 (33%), extreme frailty in 1 (11%), spinal stenosis with impaired ability to rehabilitate postsurgery in 1 (11%) and apical left ventricular thrombus in 1 (11%) patient. Antegrade deployment of the ES prosthetic valve was technically feasible in 8 patients. Major bleeding occurred in 4 patients, two patients suffered acute kidney injury without need for dialysis and one patient required a permanent pacemaker. The median (25th, 75th percentiles) fluoroscopy time was 49 (34, 81) minutes and contrast volume was 150 (120, 225) ml. No patient had hemodynamically significant post-TAVR aortic insufficiency nor damage to the mitral valve. At 6 months follow-up, there were no cerebrovascular events or rehospitalizations and mean NYHA Class improved from 3.4 to 1.7. CONCLUSIONS: The antegrade TS approach to TAVR is a technically feasible option for "no-access" patients. Prospective assessment of the safety and efficacy of this approach in the current era warrants further study.