ENDOCARDITIS WITH MITRAL-AORTIC FIBROUS TISSUE PERFORATION AFTER TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT: A THERAPEUTIC CHALLENGE IN A HIGH-RISK SURGICAL PATIENT

2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (11) ◽  
pp. 2960
Author(s):  
Fabio Souza ◽  
Marcio Junior ◽  
Monique Cardoso ◽  
Alexandre Rouge ◽  
Andre Weksler
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Fibrous Tissue ◽  
Surgical Patient ◽  
Therapeutic Challenge ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
High Risk Surgical Patient

scholarly journals Use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a patient with aortic stenosis and severe coronary artery disease: a case report

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Majid Ahsan ◽  
Rolf Alexander Jánosi ◽  
Tienush Rassaf ◽  
Alexander Lind
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Artery Disease

Abstract Background Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) often present with multiple comorbidities and suffer from critical coronary artery disease (CAD). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the therapy of choice for moderate to high-risk patients. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (v-a-ECMO) offers the possibility of temporary cardiac support to manage life-threatening critical situations. Case summary Here, we describe the management of a patient with severe AS and CAD with impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We used v-a-ECMO as an emergency strategy in cardiogenic shock during a high-risk coronary intervention to stabilize the patient, and as a further bridge to TAVR. Discussion Very high-risk patients with severe AS are unlikely to tolerate the added risk of surgical aortic valve replacement. Using ECMO may help them to benefit from TAVR as the only treatment option available.

Abstract 381: Clinical Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Among US Hospitals

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fenton McCarthy ◽  
Katherine M McDermott ◽  
Vinay Kini ◽  
Dale Kobrin ◽  
Nimesh D Desai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Cardiovascular Interventions

Background: Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) demonstrated excellent outcomes in clinical trials of inoperable/high-risk patients. Subsequent approval by the Food and Drug Administration and National Coverage Determination by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services established unique volume requirements for institutions and physicians to perform TAVR. Diffusion of prior cardiovascular interventions has involved less stringent policies and exhibited significant institutional variation in clinical outcomes. Our objective is to compare risk-standardized procedural outcomes across US hospitals performing TAVR to identify hospitals with outlying post-procedure mortality rates. Methods: All Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who underwent TAVR between January 1, 2011 and November 30, 2012 were identified. Thirty-day risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMR) were calculated using the Hospital Compare statistical method, a well-validated hierarchical generalized linear model. Results: Claims were examined from 5044 patients undergoing TAVR at 199 hospitals, with a crude 30-day mortality rate of 5.97%. RSMRs modeled using patient-level predictors varied from 4.5 % to 9.0 % (Figure 1). One hospital had a RSMR statistically lower than the national mean (4.5%, P<0.05), and two hospitals had RSMRs statistically higher than the national mean (8.5% and 6.9%, P<0.05). Conclusions: Clinical outcomes among TAVR hospitals in high-risk/inoperable patients demonstrated very little variability, few outliers, and excellent outcomes comparable to pre-approval clinical trials. This may be the result of the unique policy and regulatory environment governing the CMS coverage determination for TAVR institutions. As TAVR disseminates to additional hospitals and other new cardiovascular interventions are inevitably introduced, risk-standardized outcome comparisons across hospitals may facilitate ongoing surveillance to ensure high quality outcomes at all active centers.

Direct Transcatheter Valve Deployment via Sternotomy for Complex Aortic Valve Reoperation

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 365-368
Author(s):  
Tom C. Nguyen ◽  
Alexander P. Nissen ◽  
Pranav Loyalka ◽  
Eyal E. Porat
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
High Risk Patient ◽  
Direct Vision ◽  
Risk Patient ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Valve In Valve

Reoperative aortic valve replacement is associated with increased morbidity. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement offers a less invasive alternative to traditional reoperation. However, cases of valve failure after valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement represent a complex surgical challenge. We present a case requiring a complex reoperative aortic valve replacement due to structural valve deterioration after multiple previous valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacements. We performed removal of 3 previous valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valves, bioprosthetic leaflet excision, and intentional bioprosthetic fracture under direct vision for annular enlargement. This facilitated direct insertion of a new transcatheter aortic valve for expedient and successful management of recurrent aortic stenosis in a very high-risk patient. Creative use of leaflet excision, intentional bioprosthetic fracture, and insertion of a new transcatheter aortic valve under direct vision, proved efficient and successful in a high-risk patient with few surgical options.

scholarly journals Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and readmissions for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement vs. reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement: a contemporary assessment of real-world outcomes

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (29) ◽  
pp. 2747-2755 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sameer A Hirji ◽  
Edward D Percy ◽  
Cheryl K Zogg ◽  
Alexandra Malarczyk ◽  
Morgan T Harloff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Aortic Valves ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Valve In Valve

Abstract Aims We sought to perform a head-to-head comparison of contemporary 30-day outcomes and readmissions between valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) patients and a matched cohort of high-risk reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement (re-SAVR) patients using a large, multicentre, national database. Methods and results We utilized the nationally weighted 2012–16 National Readmission Database claims to identify all US adult patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves who underwent either VIV-TAVR (n = 3443) or isolated re-SAVR (n = 3372). Thirty-day outcomes were compared using multivariate analysis and propensity score matching (1:1). Unadjusted, VIV-TAVR patients had significantly lower 30-day mortality (2.7% vs. 5.0%), 30-day morbidity (66.4% vs. 79%), and rates of major bleeding (35.8% vs. 50%). On multivariable analysis, re-SAVR was a significant risk factor for both 30-day mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of VIV-SAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28–0.81] and 30-day morbidity [aOR for VIV-TAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.54, 95% CI 0.43–0.68]. After matching (n = 2181 matched pairs), VIV-TAVR was associated with lower odds of 30-day mortality (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23–0.74), 30-day morbidity (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43–0.72), and major bleeding (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51–0.85). Valve-in-valve TAVR was also associated with shorter length of stay (median savings of 2 days, 95% CI 1.3–2.7) and higher odds of routine home discharges (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.61–2.78) compared to re-SAVR. Conclusion In this large, nationwide study of matched high-risk patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, VIV-TAVR appears to confer an advantage over re-SAVR in terms of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and bleeding complications. Further studies are warranted to benchmark in low- and intermediate-risk patients and to adequately assess longer-term efficacy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document