INVASIVE INTERVENTIONS IN STRUCTURAL HEART DISEASES: COMPREHENSIVE TECHNIQUES

Invasive Interventions in Structural Heart Diseases-kapak

ACCESS STRATEGIES AND PITFALLS IN CLINICAL PRACTICE

Kader Eliz Şahin

Kocaeli City Hospital, Department of Cardiology, Kocaeli, Türkiye

Şahin KE. Access Strategies and Pitfalls in Clinical Practice. In: Tanık VO, Özlek B, editors. Invasive Interventions in Structural Heart Diseases: Comprehensive Techniques. 1st ed. Ankara: Türkiye Klinikleri; 2025. p.69-82.

ABSTRACT

As a result of advancements in treatment technologies and changes in patient demographics, transcatheter interventions have become the preferred treatment approach for structural heart diseases. Choosing the optimal vascular access route significantly impacts procedural success, complication rates, and patient recovery. ‘Although transfemoral access remains the most commonly used vascular approach in structural heart disease interventions when favorable aorto-femoral anatomy is present; experience and knowledge regarding the outcomes of alternative access routes continue to increase as these interventions are implemented in more centers. The main objective of this chapter is to guide clinicians in optimizing vascular access techniques to increase safety and procedural success in transcatheter structural heart disease interventions. This chapter offers a detailed review of various puncture techniques, validated vascular access strategies for cardiac interventions, their respective benefits and challenges, complication management-especially with large-bore catheters-and closure strategies for major arterial and venous access sites.

Keywords: Large-bore catheter; Vascular access; Vascular closure device; Vascular complication

Referanslar

  1. Freixa X, Romaguera R, Botas J, Trillo R, Martín-Moreiras J, Jurado-Román A. Vascular access approach for structural heart procedures. REC Interv Cardiol. 2022;4(4):311-318 [Crossref]
  2. Ramlawi B, Anaya-Ayala JE, Reardon MJ. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR): access planning and strategies. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. 2012;8(2):22-5. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  3. Seto AH, Abu-Fadel MS, Sparling JM, Zacharias SJ, Daly TS, Harrison AT, et al. Real-time ultrasound guidance facilitates femoral arterial access and reduces vascular complications: FAUST (Femoral Arterial Access With Ultrasound Trial). JACC. Cardiovascular interventions, 2010;3(7):751-758. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  4. Jolly SS, AlRashidi S, d'Entremont MA, Alansari O, Brochu B, Heenan L, Skuriat E, et al. Routine Ultrasonography Guidance for Femoral Vascular Access for Cardiac Procedures: The UNIVERSAL Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2022;7(11):1110-1118. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  5. Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Généreux P, Piazza N, van Mieghem NM, Blackstone EH, et al. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(19):2403-18. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  6. Toggweiler S, Leipsic J, Binder RK, Freeman M, Barbanti M, Heijmen RH, et al. Management of vascular access in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: part 2: Vascular complications. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:767-776. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  7. Maniotis C, Andreou C, Karalis I, Koutouzi G, Agelaki M, Koutouzis M. A systematic review on the safety of Prostar XL versus ProGlide after TAVR and EVAR. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2017;18(2):145-150. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  8. Ott I, Shivaraju A, Schäffer NR, Frangieh AH, Michel J, Husser O, et al. Parallel suture technique with ProGlide: a novel method for management of vascular access during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). EuroIntervention. 2017;13(8):928-934. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  9. Mahalwar G, Shariff M, Datla S, Agrawal A, Rathore SS, Arif TB, et al. Meta-analysis of ProGlide versus MANTA vascular closure devices for large-bore access site management. Indian Heart J. 2022;74(3):251-255. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  10. Burzotta F, Romagnoli E, Aurigemma C, Bruno P, Cangemi S, Bianchini F, et al. A simple technique to obtain postprocedural antegrade angiographic control in single-access Impella-protected PCI. Health Sci Rep. 2022;5(4):e709. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  11. Van Gils L, De Jaegere PPT, Roubin G, Van Mieghem NM. The MANTA vascular closure device: a novel device for large-bore vessel closure. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(11):1195-1196. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  12. Eftychiou C, Eteocleous N, Mitsis A, Zittis I, Papadopoulos K, Petrou A, et al. Comparison of MANTA vs ProGlide Vascular Closure Device and 30-Day Outcomes in Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. Tex Heart Inst J. 2022;49(5):e217650. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  13. Cox T, Blair L, Huntington C, Lincourt A, Sing R, Heniford BT. Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Manual Compression to Vascular Closure Devices for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Arterial Procedures. Surg Technol Int. 2015 Nov;27:32-44. [PubMed]
  14. Paraggio L, Bianchini F, Aurigemma C, Romagnoli E, Bianchini E, Zito A, et al. Femoral Large Bore Sheath Management: How to Prevent Vascular Complications from Vessel Puncture to Sheath Removal. Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions, 2024;17(9):e014156. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  15. Burzotta F, Aurigemma C, Kovacevic M, Romagnoli E, Cangemi S, Bianchini F, et al. Pledget-assisted hemostasis to fix residual access-site bleedings after double pre-closure technique. World J Cardiol. 2022;14:297-306. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  16. Banks A, Gaca J, Kiefer T. Review of alternative access in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2020;10(1):72-82. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  17. Amat-Santos IJ, Santos-Martínez S, Conradi L, Taramasso M, Poli A, Romaguera R, et al. Transaxillary transcatheter ACURATE neo aortic valve implantation - The TRANSAX multicenter study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;98(2):E291-E298. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  18. Petronio AS, De Carlo M, Bedogni F, Maisano F, Ettori F, Klugmann S, et al. 2-year results of CoreValve implantation through the subclavian access: a propensity-matched comparison with the femoral access. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(6):502-7. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  19. Allen KB, Chhatriwalla AK, Cohen D, Saxon J, Hawa Z, Kennedy KF, et al. Transcarotid Versus Transapical and Transaortic Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;108(3):715-722. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  20. Hameed I, Oakley CT, Hameed NUF, Ahmed A, Naeem N, Singh S, et al. Alternate accesses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A network meta-analysis. J Card Surg. 2021;36(11):4308-4319. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  21. Lederman RJ, Babaliaros VC, Rogers T, Stine AM, Chen MY, Muhammad KI, et al. The Fate of Transcaval Access Tracts: 12-Month Results of the Prospective NHLBI Transcaval Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(5):448-456. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC]
  22. Kumar N, Khera R, Fonarow GC, Bhatt DL. Comparison of Outcomes of Transfemoral Versus Transapical Approach for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2018;122(9):1520-1526. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  23. Dunne B, Tan D, Chu D, Yau V, Xiao J, Ho KM, et al. Transapical Versus Transaortic Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100(1):354-61. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  24. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guidance on the use of ultrasound locating devices for placing central venous catheters. NICE. 2002. Available online. [Link]
  25. Atti V, Turagam MK, Garg J, Alratroot A, Abela GS, Rayamajhi S, et al. Efficacy and safety of figure-of-eight suture versus manual pressure for venous access closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2020;57:379-385. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  26. Akkaya E, Sözener K, Rixe J, Tsiakou M, Souretis G, Chavakis E, et al. Venous access closure using a pursestring suture without heparin antagonism or additional compression after MitraClip implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;96:179-186. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  27. Ben-Dor I, Craig P, Torguson R, Rogers T, Buchanan KD, Pokharel S, et al. MynxGrip® vascular closure device versus manual compression for hemostasis of percutaneous transfemoral venous access closure: Results from a prospective multicenter randomized study. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2018;19(4):418-422. [Crossref]  [PubMed]
  28. Natale A, Mohanty S, Liu PY, Mittal S, Al-Ahmad A, De Lurgio DB, et al. AMBULATE Trial Investigators. Venous Vascular Closure System Versus Manual Compression Following Multiple Access Electrophysiology Procedures: The AMBULATE Trial. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020;6(1):111-124. [Crossref]  [PubMed]