Background and Aims: Data from randomized trials investigating different access closure strategies after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) remain scarce. In this study, two vascular closure device (VCD) strategies to achieve haemostasis after TF-TAVI were compared. Methods: The ACCESS-TAVI (Comparison of Strategies for Vascular ACCESS Closure after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) is a prospective, multicentre trial in which patients undergoing TF-TAVI were randomly assigned to a strategy with a combined suture-/plug-based VCD strategy (suture/plug group) using one ProGlide™/ProStyle™ (Abbott Vascular) and one Angio-Seal® (Terumo) vs. a suture-based VCD strategy (suture-only group) using two ProGlides™/ProStyles™. The primary endpoint was a composite of major or minor access site-related vascular complications during index hospitalization according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria. Key secondary endpoints included time to haemostasis, bleeding type ≥ 2, and all-cause mortality over 30 days. Results: Between September 2022 and April 2024, 454 patients were randomized. The primary endpoint occurred in 27% (62/230) in the suture/plug group and 54% (121/224) in the suture-only group [relative risk .55 (95% confidence interval: .44, .68); P < .001]. Time to haemostasis was significantly shorter in the suture/plug group compared with the suture-only group (108 ± 208 s vs. 206 ± 171 s; P < .001). At 30 days, bleeding type ≥ 2 occurred less often in the suture/plug group compared with the suture-only group [6.2% vs. 12.1%, relative risk .66 (.43, 1.02); P = .032], with no significant difference in mortality. Conclusions: With regard to the composite of major or minor access site-related vascular complications, a combined suture-/plug-based VCD strategy was superior to a suture-based VCD strategy for vascular access closure in patients undergoing TF-TAVI.

Background: The novel Navitor intra-annular self-expandable transcatheter aortic valve prosthesis is designed to improve coronary access, reduce paravalvular leaks, and enhance hemodynamic performance. Comparative data with the established Evolut platform (R, Pro, FX) are still lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the short-term clinical outcomes of Navitor (NAV) versus Evolut transcatheter heart valves. Methods: We conducted a single-center analysis of patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR between January 2015 and May 2024. A propensity score matching protocol including 18 baseline variables was used to balance baseline characteristics. Clinical outcomes were assessed using VARC-3 criteria. Results: Of 1067 TAVR patients, 210 were analyzed after matching—70 with the Nav valve and 140 with the Evolut valve. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups, with a mean age of 80.9 ± 6.5 years in the NAV group and 80.7 ± 6.7 years in the Evolut group (p = 0.9). Both groups had an intermediate STS predicted risk of mortality, 3.9 ± 3.4% for NAV and 3.9 ± 3.2% for Evolut (p = 1.0). The effective aortic annulus diameter was comparable between the NAV (23.9 ± 1.5 mm) and Evolut group (23.9 ± 2.4 mm, p = 0.8). Hemodynamic performance at discharge was similar, with mean gradients of 7.5 ± 2.8 mmHg (NAV) vs. 7.4 ± 3.7 mmHg (Evolut, p = 0.9). Valve orifice areas and paravalvular leak rates showed no difference between the groups. Device success rates at discharge were good for both THVs: 89.3% for Evolut and 91.4% for NAV (p = 0.8). Disabling stroke occurred less frequently in the NAV group (0.0% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.033), while other early safety outcomes and 30-day mortalities were similar. Conclusions: The Navitor valve offers comparable hemodynamic performance, paravalvular leak rates, and procedural success to the Evolut platform. While early safety outcomes were largely similar, the Navitor valve was associated with a lower 30-day disabling stroke rate.

Background Third-generation transcatheter heart valves (THV) are predominantly implanted through a percutaneous, transfemoral access. To reduce vascular complications, we selectively performed surgical vascular access (cutdown) in patients with particular calcified or small femoral arteries. We aim to review our experience with this approach. Methods All patients who underwent transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a third-generation THV at our institution between March 2014 and April 2019 were included in the study. All available computerized tomography studies were reassessed for access vessel diameter and visual graduation of calcifications. Vascular complications are reported according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. Results A total of 944 patients were included. Among them, 879 patients underwent a percutaneous access and 65 patients underwent surgical cutdown. Also, 459 Evolut R/PRO and 420 Sapien 3/ultra were implanted percutaneously and 40 Evolut R/PRO and 25 Sapien 3 were implanted with a surgical cutdown. Patients with surgical cutdown were older (80.0 ± 7.5 vs. 83.8 ± 7.5 years, p < 0.001), had smaller femoral arteries (8.0 ± 1.6 vs. 7.6 ± 1.6 mm, p = 0.034) and more severe vessel calcifications (17.5 vs. 1.0%, p < 0.001). Procedure time was similar for cutdown and percutaneous access (64.0 vs. 64.5 minutes, p = 0.879). With percutaneous access, 80 major vascular complications (10%) occurred, whereas with surgical cutdown, no major vascular complications occurred (p < 0.005). No wound infection occurred after surgical cutdown. The mean length of stay was 8 days in both groups. Conclusion Surgical cutdown for vascular access avoids vascular complications in patients with small or severely calcified femoral arteries. None. ^# Both authors contributed equally. Received: 27 September 2020 Accepted: 14 January 2021 Publication Date: 24 March 2021 (online) © 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

Objectives: Vascular access site complications increase morbidity and mortality in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).Background: Medtronic's EnVeo PRO® low‐profile sheath concept and Edwards' expandable eSheath® aim to lower vascular trauma and access site complications. This study aims to compare Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)‐3 defined access‐related vascular complications using the two different transcatheter heart valve (THV) delivery concepts.Methods: We performed a retrospective, propensity‐matched study to compare access site vascular complications in 756 consecutive patients who underwent a transfemoral TAVR using a Medtronic Evolut‐R®/Evolut‐PRO® or an Edwards Sapien3®/Sapien3ultra® THV.Results: Propensity score matching resulted in 275 patient pairs. The primary endpoint of major VARC‐3 vascular complication was 7.6% in the Medtronic group and 12.7% in the Edwards group (p = 0.066). Minor VARC‐3 vascular complications were 9.1% and 8%, respectively (p = 0.76). VARC‐3 bleeding complications (8.4% vs. 12.7%, p = 0.129) length of hospital stay (7.6 + 5.4 vs. 7.5 + 3.7 days, p = 0.783) and in‐hospital mortality (1.1% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.624) were comparable between both groups.Conclusions: In a propensity‐matched TAVR population, patients treated with the integrated sheath showed a trend towards fewer major vascular complications than patients treated with an expandable sheath, however, the difference was not statistically significant.

Valve disease in the presence of porcelain aorta and severe peripheral artery disease challenge physicians in choosing the appropriate therapy. We used a total transcatheter approach, simultaneously implanting a dedicated mitral and aortic valve prosthesis treating a patient with mitral and aortic valve disease at an extremely high surgical risk. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.)