scholarly journals The importance of the Heart Team evaluation before transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Results from the BRAVO‐3 trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 96 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anton Camaj ◽  
Bimmer E. Claessen ◽  
Roxana Mehran ◽  
Matias B. Yudi ◽  
David Power ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Heart Team ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Team Evaluation

scholarly journals More in, better out? Successful valve-in-valve procedure of an iatrogenic ventricular septal defect following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a case report

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus-Dieter Hönemann ◽  
Steffen Hofmann ◽  
Frank Ritter ◽  
Gerold Mönnig
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Ventricular Septal Defect ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Septal Defect ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Heart Team ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Valve In Valve

Abstract Background A rare, but serious, complication following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the occurrence of an iatrogenic ventricular septal defect (VSD). Case summary We describe a case of an 80-year-old female who was referred with severe aortic stenosis for TAVR. Following thorough evaluation, the heart team consensus was to proceed with implantation via a transapical approach of an ACURATE neo M 25 mm valve (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA). The valve was deployed harnessing transoesophageal echocardiographic (TOE) guidance under rapid pacing with post-dilation. Directly afterwards a very high VSD close to the aortic annulus was detected. As the patient was haemodynamically stable, the procedure was ended. The next day another TOE revealed a shunt volume (left-to-right ventricle) between 50% and 60%. Because the defect was partly located between the stent struts of the ACURATE valve decision was made to fix this leakage with implantation of a further valve and we chose an EVOLUT Pro 29 mm (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA). The valve-in-valve was implanted 2–3 mm below the lower edge of the first valve, more towards the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) with excellent result: VSD was reduced to a very small residual shunt without any hemodynamic relevance. Discussion We suggest that an iatrogenic VSD located near the annulus may be treated percutaneously in a bail-out situation with implantation of a second valve that should be implanted slightly more into the LVOT to cover the VSD.

Identifying patients likely to be readmitted after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Heart ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 106 (4) ◽  
pp. 256-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Goldsweig ◽  
Herbert David Aronow
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction ◽  
Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Routine Practice ◽  
Heart Team ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve

Hospital readmission following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) contributes considerably to the costs of care. Readmission rates following TAVR have been reported to be as high as 17.4% at 30 days and 53.2% at 1 year. Patient and procedural factors predict an increased likelihood of readmission including non-transfemoral access, acute and chronic kidney impairment, chronic lung disease, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, atrial fibrillation, major bleeding and prolonged index hospitalisation. Recent studies have also found the requirement for new pacemaker implantation and the severity of paravalvular aortic regurgitation and tricuspid regurgitation to be novel predictors of readmission. Post-TAVR readmission within 30 days of discharge is more likely to occur for non-cardiac than cardiac pathology, although readmission for cardiac causes, especially heart failure, predicts higher mortality than readmission for non-cardiac causes. To combat the risk of readmission and associated mortality, the routine practice of calculating and considering readmission risk should be adopted by the heart team. Furthermore, because most readmissions following TAVR occur for non-cardiac reasons, more holistic approaches to readmission prevention are necessary. Familiarity with the most common predictors and causes of readmission should guide the development of initiatives to address these conditions proactively.

scholarly journals Concomitant Transapical Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Transapical Balloon Mitral Valvuloplasty to Treat Severe Aortic Stenosis with Severe Mitral Stenosis

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. E624-E627
Author(s):  
Peijian ◽  
Jian Liu ◽  
Huiming Guo
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Mitral Stenosis ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Heart Team ◽  
Mitral Valvuloplasty ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve

This paper reports concomitant transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TA-TAVR) and transapical balloon mitral valvuloplasty (TA-BMV) for the first time. A 72-year-old man with a diagnosis of rheumatic severe aortic stenosis with mild insufficiency and rheumatic severe mitral stenosis with mild insufficiency was referred to the Department of Cardiac Surgery of Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital. After the interdisciplinary discussion in the heart team (cardiac surgeon, cardiologist, anesthesiologist and image specialist), we decided to perform concomitant TAVR and BMV through one transapical approach considering the patient’s preference, NYHA class IV heart failure, and the calculated perioperative risk (Euroscore II 3.74%, STS score for the combined mitral and aortic procedure is not available). No intraoperative or postoperative complications were observed.

scholarly journals Meta‐Analysis of Stroke and Mortality Rates in Patients Undergoing Valve‐in‐Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sascha Macherey ◽  
Max Meertens ◽  
Victor Mauri ◽  
Christian Frerker ◽  
Matti Adam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Heart Team ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Valve In Valve ◽  
Bioprosthetic Valves

Background During the past decade, the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was extended beyond treatment‐naïve patients and implemented for treatment of degenerated surgical bioprosthetic valves. Selection criteria for either valve‐in‐valve (viv) TAVR or redo surgical aortic valve replacement are not well established, and decision making on the operative approach still remains challenging for the interdisciplinary heart team. Methods and Results This review was intended to analyze all studies on viv‐TAVR focusing on short‐ and mid‐term stroke and mortality rates compared with redo surgical aortic valve replacement or native TAVR procedures. A structured literature search and review process led to 1667 potentially relevant studies on July 1, 2020. Finally, 23 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis. All references were case series either with or without propensity score matching and registry analyses. Quantitative synthesis of data from 8509 patients revealed that viv‐TAVR is associated with mean 30‐day stroke and mortality rates of 2.2% and 4.2%, respectively. Pooled data analysis showed no significant differences in 30‐day stroke rate, 30‐day mortality, and 1‐year mortality between viv‐TAVR and comparator treatment (native TAVR [n=11 804 patients] or redo surgical aortic valve replacement [n=498 patients]). Conclusions This review is the first one comparing the risk for stroke and mortality rates in viv‐TAVR procedures with native TAVR approach and contributes substantial data for the clinical routine. Moreover, this systematic review is the most comprehensive analysis on ischemic cerebrovascular events and early mortality in patients undergoing viv‐TAVR. In this era with increasing numbers of bioprosthetic valves used in younger patients, viv‐TAVR is a suitable option for the treatment of degenerated bioprostheses.

scholarly journals Shockwave and Non-transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eden C Payabyab ◽  
Lindsay S Elbaum ◽  
Navneet Sharma ◽  
Isaac George ◽  
Stephanie L Mick
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Arterial Disease ◽  
Heart Team ◽  
Femoral Access ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Peripheral Arterial

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a widely adopted treatment modality for severe aortic stenosis. Transfemoral access is the approach of choice; however, approximately 25% of patients undergoing TAVR also have concomitant peripheral arterial disease. The recent advent of intravascular lithotripsy has enabled preservation of transfemoral access in some patients; although, a proportion still require alternative, non-femoral access. Alternative access sites can be broadly categorized into transthoracic and peripheral, facilitated by surgical or percutaneous techniques. In this review, the technical details and clinical outcomes of various TAVR accesses are discussed. Initially, transthoracic approaches were most common, but recently, the trend has been toward alternative peripheral access due to superior outcomes. Although there are no randomized data to support all the alternative access sites, the experiences reported provide available options for a large portion of patients to be candidates for TAVR. The intervention site should be selected by a multidisciplinary heart team based on patient anatomical factors and institutional expertise.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document