BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using a self-expanding valve has been shown to be superior to an open operation in high-risk patients. Extensive iliofemoral peripheral vascular disease can prohibit femoral access. In these cases, direct aortic (DA) implantation may be a suitable option.

METHODS: The current analysis compared outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR with the self-expanding CoreValve prosthesis (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) by direct aortic (DA) access vs iliofemoral (IF) access. Patients treated in the CoreValve US High Risk and Extreme Risk Pivotal Trials and Continued Access Study were included. Propensity score matching was used to account for differences in baseline characteristics between groups. Clinical outcomes were compared at 30 days and 1 year.

RESULTS: We identified 394 matched pairs of IF and DA patients. The all-cause mortality rate was significantly higher in the DA group than in the IF group at 30 days (10.9% vs 4.1%, p < 0.001), but this difference was reduced at 1 year (28.1% vs 23.2%, p = 0.063). All-cause mortality or major stroke was significantly higher for DA vs IF access at 30 days (13.5% vs 5.3%, p < 0.001) and at 1 year (30.4% vs 24.2%, p = 0.025). Major/life-threatening bleeding and acute kidney injury were significantly greater in the DA group at 30 days (66.7% vs 35.4% and 19.7% vs 10.0%, respectively, both p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: When femoral access is not feasible, DA access allows effective delivery of the valve but incurs an increased risk of death and adverse events, potentially the result of procedural differences.