Transcatheter aortic valve implantation via surgical subclavian versus direct aortic access: a United Kingdom analysis

Aung Myat, Olympia Papachristofi, Uday Trivedi, Vinayak Bapat, Christopher Young, Adam De Belder, James Cockburn, Andreas Baumbach, Adrian P. Banning, Daniel J. Blackman, Philip Maccarthy, Michael Mullen, Douglas F. Muir, James Nolan, Azfar Zaman, Mark De Belder, Ian Cox, Jan Kovac, Stephen Brecker, Mark TurnerSaib Khogali, Iqbal Malik, Simon Redwood, Bernard Prendergast, Peter Ludman, Linda Sharples, David Hildick-smith

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)
141 Downloads (Pure)


Background Surgical subclavian (SC) and direct aortic (DA) access are established alternatives to the default transfemoral route for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We sought to find differences in survival and procedure-related outcomes after SC- versus DA-TAVI. Methods We performed an observational cohort analysis of cases prospectively uploaded to the UK TAVI registry. To ensure the most contemporaneous comparison, the analysis focused on SC and DA procedures performed from 2013 to 2015. Results Between January 2013 and July 2015, 82 (37%) SC and 142 (63%) DA cases were performed that had validated 1-year life status. Multivariable regression analysis showed procedure duration was longer for SC cases (SC 193.5 ± 65.8 vs. DA 138.4 ± 57.7 min; p < .01) but length of hospital stay was shorter (SC 8.6 ± 9.5 vs. DA 11.9 ± 10.8 days; p = .03). Acute kidney injury was observed less frequently after SC cases (odds ratio [OR] 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI 0.12–0.96]; p = .042) but vascular access site-related complications were more common (OR 9.75 [3.07–30.93]; p < .01). Procedure-related bleeding (OR 0.54 [0.24–1.25]; p = .15) and in-hospital stroke rate (SC 3.7% vs. DA 2.1%; p = .67) were similar. There were no significant differences in in-hospital (SC 2.4% vs. DA 4.9%; p = .49), 30-day (SC 2.4% vs. DA 4.2%; p = .71) or 1-year (SC 14.5% vs. DA 21.9%; p = .344) mortality. Conclusions Surgical subclavian and direct aortic approaches can offer favourable outcomes in appropriate patients. Neither access modality conferred a survival advantage but there were significant differences in procedural metrics that might influence which approach is selected.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)67-72
JournalInternational Journal of Cardiology
Early online date21 Mar 2020
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2020


  • Aortic stenosis
  • Axillary
  • Direct aortic
  • Subclavian
  • Transcatheter aortic valve implantation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Transcatheter aortic valve implantation via surgical subclavian versus direct aortic access: a United Kingdom analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this