Alternative Access Approaches for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replace (TAVR) in Inoperable Patients With Aortic Stenosis (Inop AA)
Severe Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis
Device: Edwards SAPIEN Transcatheter Heart Valve
|Study Design:||Observational Model: Cohort
Time Perspective: Prospective
|Official Title:||Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) Registry Assessment of Alternative Access Approaches for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) in Inoperable Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis|
- Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events [ Time Frame: 30 day ]Increase in the 30-day risk of adverse events among patients receiving TAVR; Modified 30 day Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) Composite Early Safety Endpoint
- Mortality [ Time Frame: 1 year ]Proportion of patients who are alive with at least moderate functional improvement (defined as at least 10 point improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) from baseline) at 1 year after TAVR
- 30-day endpoints for major morbidity [ Time Frame: 30 day ]Endpoints include: mortality, stroke, stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), major vascular complications, valve-related dysfunction requiring re-intervention, incident renal replacement therapy, life-threatening bleeding, and high-degree aortic valve (AV) block requiring permanent pacemaker implantation
|Study Start Date:||April 2013|
|Study Completion Date:||March 2015|
|Primary Completion Date:||March 2015 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)|
Inoperable Patients Alternative Access
Non-femoral delivery (or alternative access) in patients iwht severe symptomatic native aortic valve stenosis who have been determined by a cardiac surgeon to be inoperable for open aortic valve replacement and in whom existing co-morbidities would not preclude the expected benefit from correction of the aortic stenosis
Device: Edwards SAPIEN Transcatheter Heart Valve
Non-femoral transcatheter delivery of heart valve
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using the Edwards SAPIEN valve and Retroflex 3 delivery system provides both a mortality and quality of life benefit for inoperable patients. Only the transfemoral (TF) access has been approved in the US. A substantial number of patients cannot have a TF approach due to inadequate vessel size, vessel disease, or other anatomical considerations. The pivotal study did not include an assessment of safety and effectiveness of alternative access approaches in this inoperable patient group.
Early approaches to TAVR included a femoral transvenous approach with transseptal access to the left side for delivery of the valve. This approach avoided large bore arterial catheterization, but it had unacceptable rates of complications and lacked reproducibility. Alternative access approaches have been developed because of the risks associated with inserting large caliber catheters into small, diseased femoral arteries often associated with diffuse vasculopathy. To avoid the vascular complications from femoral access, other transcatheter approaches have been developed to include open surgical access to the left ventricular apex (TA), ascending aorta, (TAO), subclavian and axillary arteries (TS), and retroperitoneal access to the iliac artery (TI) as well as distal aorta. In addition to providing TAVR to patients who cannot have TF access, additional advantages include better catheter control and safer closure of the access site. Commonly cited disadvantages include the need for surgical expertise and additional equipment, along with the potential for longer recovery, more incisional pain, greater radiation exposure for operators, unsuitable delivery catheters for alternative access sites, and a host of unique alternative access site complications.
We propose to collectively analyze 30-day safety endpoints as a lumped data group for these alternative access approaches. These data are gathered from clinical practice in real-world settings and submitted to the TVT Registry. It is expected that centers will choose among the various choices for alternative access based the causative factors underlying the need for alternative access, as well as local skill sets and experience. For this lumped data group of alternative access approaches we will compare 30-day safety results to the TA outcomes reported from Cohort A of the PARTNERS 1 trial. We recognize that these TA patients were high risk operable patients rather than inoperable patients, but no other direct comparator group is available. We reason that the TA data from this published clinical trial are high quality, represent an alternative access approach rather than TF, and will provide a frequency of safety endpoints that have been found to be acceptable both clinically and from a regulatory perspective.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01787084
|Principal Investigator:||John D Carroll, MD||American College of Cardiology|
|Principal Investigator:||Fred H Edwards, MD||Society of Thoracic Surgeons|