Chimney Stenting vs BASILICA for Prevention of Acute Coronary Obstruction During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background: Coronary obstruction (CO) is a potentially life-threatening complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Chimney stenting or leaflet laceration with transcatheter electrosurgery (Bioprosthetic or Native Aortic Scallop Intentional Laceration to Prevent Iatrogenic Coronary Artery Obstruction [BASILICA]) are 2 techniques developed to prevent CO.

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to compare periprocedural and 1-year outcomes of chimney and BASILICA in TAVR patients at high risk of CO.

Methods: This multicenter observational registry enrolled consecutive TAVR patients at high risk of CO, undergoing either preventive chimney stenting or BASILICA. Clinical success was defined as successful performance of the chimney or BASILICA technique without clinically relevant ostial CO. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events, a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned target lesion coronary revascularization at 1 year.

Results: A total of 168 patients were included: 71 (42.3%) received chimney stenting, and 97 (57.7%) underwent BASILICA. Patients undergoing BASILICA had higher preprocedural risk of CO, as indicated by lower sinotubular junction height (18.2 ± 4.8 mm vs 14.8 ± 3.4 mm; P < 0.001) and diameter (28.2 ± 4.5 vs 26.8 ± 3.4; P = 0.029). Rates of periprocedural complications were similar between the 2 groups. Clinical success was 97.2% and 96.9% in chimney and BASILICA, respectively (P = 0.92). At 1-year follow-up, the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was 18.7% (95% CI: 11%-30.6%) in the chimney group and 19.9% (95% CI: 12.1%-31.5%) in the BASILICA group (log-rank P = 0.848), whereas chimney was associated with a numerically higher cardiovascular mortality than BASILICA (6.7% vs 1.3%; log-rank P = 0.168).

Conclusions: Chimney stenting and BASILICA effectively prevent TAVR-induced acute CO. Both techniques seem to have comparable acceptable periprocedural and 1-year outcomes.