Contemporary suprasternal transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A multicenter experience using a simple, reliable alternative access approach. Issue 6 (26th August 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Eudailey, Kyle W.; Olds, Anna; Lewis, Clifton T.; Nazif, Tamim N.; Vahl, Torsten; Khalique, Omar K.; Hahn, Rebecca T.; Bapat, Vinayak; Borger, Michael A.; Leon, Martin B.; Ahmed, Mustafa I.; Kodali, Susheel; George, Isaac
• Is Part Of: Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions. Volume 95:Issue 6(2020)
• Page Start: 1178
• Page End: 1183
• Publication Date: 2019-08-26
• Subjects: alternative access -- aortic stenosis -- suprasternal -- transcatheter aortic valve replacement; Heart -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Cardiac catheterization -- Periodicals; 616.1207572
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.28460
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1522-1946

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: To describe outcomes after suprasternal (SS) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as a new alternative access approach. Background: There still remains a cohort of the TAVR population who are not suitable for a transfemoral (TF) approach. SS‐TAVR is a safe and effective alternative to TF‐TAVR and has now become our preferred alternative access route. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients from New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center and Princeton Baptist Medical Center who underwent SS‐TAVR from 2015 to July 2018. A total of 84 patients were included in the study. Results: Technical success was achieved in all cases. Thirty‐day survival was 98.8% ( n = 83). There were minimal complications. Most notably, there were no transient ischemic attacks or strokes (0%, n = 0). Reexploration for bleeding was 3.6% ( n = 3), and major bleeding was 1.7% ( n = 1). We also achieved satisfactory results with a mean aortic valve gradient of 6.07 ± 3.79 mmHg and an aortic valve area of 2.21 ± 0.51 cm 2 . No patients had anything more than mild paravalvular leak. The mean length of stay (LOS) in the intensive care unit was 1.42 ± 1.23 days, and hospital LOS was 4.20 ± 3.29 days. Conclusions: SS access for TAVR is an extremely important technique to have in any valve team's alternative access armamentarium. This technique can be safely and reliably reproduced with any standard hybrid operating room setup and no additional equipment, and it can be used with any commercially available valve system. In the current experience, minimal complications and excellent early term results were obtained.