The role of the vascular surgeon in transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the standard treatment for severe aortic valve stenosis in patients at increased surgical risk. Percutaneous transfemoral (TF) is the access of choice due to its reduced invasiveness and perioperative morbidity/mortality compared with the trans-axillary, aortic, and apical routes. On the other hand, vascular access complications (VACs) of the TF access are associated with prolonged hospitalization, 30-day, and 1-year mortality. In addition, the concomitance of peripheral arterial disease may require associated endovascular management. A multidisciplinary team with Interventional Cardiologists and Vascular Surgeons may minimize the rate of VACs in patients with challenging femoral-iliac access or concomitant disease of other vascular districts, thus optimizing the outcome of TF-TAVI. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of Vascular Surgeons in TF TAVI procedures.

METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single-center review of all TF-TAVI procedures assisted by Vascular Surgeons between January 2016 and December 2020 in a high-volume tertiary hospital. Pre, intra, and postoperative data were analyzed by a dedicated group of Interventional Cardiologists and Vascular Surgeons. VACs were defined according with the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) three guidelines. The outcomes of TF-TAVI procedures with Vascular Surgeons involvement were assessed as study's endpoints.

RESULTS: Overall, 937 TAVI procedures were performed with a TF approach ranging between 78% (2016) and 98% (2020). Vascular Surgeons were involved in 67 (7%) procedures with the following indications: concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR + TAVI) - 3 (4%), carotid stenosis (TAVI + CAS) - 2 (3%), hostile femoral/iliac access, or VACs - 62 (93%). Balloon angioplasty of iliac artery pre-TAVI implantation was performed in 51 cases (conventional PTA: 38/51%-75%; conventional PTA + intravascular lithotripsy: 13/51%-25%; stenting: 5/51%-10%). TAVI procedure was successfully completed by percutaneous TF approach in all 62 cases with challenging femoral/iliac access. VACs necessitating interventions were 18/937 (2%) cases, localized to the common femoral or common/external iliac artery in 15/18 (83%) and 3/18 (17%) cases, respectively. They were managed by surgical or endovascular maneuvers in 3/18 (17%) and 15/18 (83%) cases, respectively. Fifteen/18 (83%) VACs were treated during the index procedure. There was no procedure-related mortality or 30-day readmission.

CONCLUSION: In our experience, Vascular Surgeon assistance in TAVI procedures was not infrequent and allowed safe and effective device introduction through challenging TF access. Similarly, the concomitant significant disease of other vascular districts could be safely addressed, potentially reducing postoperative related mortality and morbidity. The implementation of multidisciplinary team with interventional cardiologists and vascular surgeons should be encouraged whenever possible.