Safety and efficacy of the subclavian access route for TAVI in cases of missing transfemoral access.

OBJECTIVE

We retrospectively analysed our experience with the subclavian access transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the self-expandable CoreValve prosthesis and compared the results with transfemorally treated patients.

BACKGROUND

For TAVI, a subclavian access is alternatively used when the femoral arteries are diseased or very small.

METHODS

Between June 2007 and February 2011, 341 patients underwent CoreValve implantation in the German Heart Center, Munich through either transfemoral (n = 301) or subclavian (n = 40) approach. The subclavian approach was chosen where transfemoral approach was not possible.

RESULTS

There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the groups. There were no significant differences between groups for parameters potentially related to improved valve positioning (contrast medium, fluoroscopy time, implantation of a second valve, post-implantation balloon dilatation, valve dislocation, pacemaker implantation, aortic regurgitation), while the procedure duration was longer (105 ± 40 vs. 82 ± 33 min, p = 0.001). With the Kaplan-Meier estimate, survival was not different among groups. Strokes, myocardial ischaemia, and access vessel complications occurred in 2.5, 0, and 7.5 % (subclavian group) vs. 4.3, 2.0, 10.6 % (transfemoral group), ns.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate the safety of the subclavian access for TAVI and comparability with the transfemoral approach. With longer duration of the procedure and no significant advantages in clinical outcome, the subclavian access will have an indication for selected patients, while transfemoral TAVI should be considered first choice.