Search

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is well-established for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS), but its use in rheumatic heart disease (RHD) has been limited. We systematically review the use of TAVR for severe symptomatic AS in RHD. Pubmed, Embase, and Scopus were searched for TAVR for symptomatic severe AS and proven or suspected RHD. Procedure characteristics, efficacy, and safety endpoints were collected and all definitions were based on the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) criteria. We included 3 case series and 12 case reports, with a total of 43 patients. Mean age was 76 years, 75% were female, and 85% had NYHA class III-IV symptoms. Follow up ranged from 1 to 29 months. Patients were moderate to high risk, with Society of Thoracic Surgery score ranging from 6.1% to 17.6%. The approach was transfemoral in 30 (83%) cases. Procedural success occurred in 37 (86%) patients. Of the 7 patients with periprocedural complications, 4 had valve dislodgement, 1 deployment failure, 1 unplanned cardiopulmonary bypass, and 1 moderate aortic regurgitation. Paravalvular leak was reported in 5 (11.6%) patients. Only 1 patient had heart block requiring pacemaker. Among 13 studies (23 patients), 30-day mortality was 0%. One case series with 19 patients had a 30-day, 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year mortality of 5%, 11%, 31%, and 48%, respectively. TAVR appears feasible for selected patients with rheumatic severe AS, albeit our results indicate a 14% incidence of device failure. Future randomized clinical trials may clarify the role of TAVR in this group., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The authors declare no funding and conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Restricting transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to centers based on volume thresholds alone can potentially create unintended disparities in healthcare access. We aimed to compare the influence of population density in state of Florida in regard to access to TAVR, TAVR utilization rates, and in-hospital mortality., Methods and Results: From 2011 to 2016, we used data from the Agency for Health Care Administration to calculate travel time and distance for each TAVR patient by comparing their home address to their TAVR facility ZIP code. Travel time and distance, TAVR rates, and mortality were compared across categories of low to high population density (population per square miles of land). Of the 6531 patients included, the mean (SD) age was 82 (9) years, 43% were female and 91% were White. Patients residing in the lowest category (<50/square miles) were younger, more likely to be men, and less likely to be a racial minority. Those residing in the lowest category density faced a longer unadjusted driving distances and times to their TAVR center (mean extra distance [miles]=43.5 [95% CI, 35.6-51.4]; P <0.001; mean extra time (minutes)=45.6 [95% CI, 38.3-52.9], P <0.001). This association persisted regardless of the methods used to determine population density. Excluding uninhabitable land, there was a 7-fold difference in TAVR utilization rates in the lowest versus highest population density regions (7 versus 45 per 100 000, P -for-pairwise-comparisons <0.001) and increase in TAVR in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR, 6.13 [95% CI, 1.97-19.1]; P <0.001)., Conclusions: Older patients living in rural counties in Florida face (1) significantly longer travel distances and times for TAVR, (2) lower TAVR utilization rates, and (3) higher adjusted TAVR mortality. These findings suggest that there are trade-offs between access to TAVR, its rate of utilization, and procedural mortality, all of which are important considerations when defining institutional and operator requirements for TAVR across the country.

Background: We examined the outcomes of older adults undergoing nontrans-femoral (non-TF) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures including trans-apical (TA), trans-aortic (TAo), trans-subclavian (TSub), and trans-carotid (TCa) techniques., Methods and Results: This is an observational study of all consecutive older patients who underwent non-TF TAVR for symptomatic severe AS with Edwards Sapien (ES), Medtronic CoreValve, ES3 or Lotus Valve at three centers in France and the United States from 04/2008 to 02/2017. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were defined according to VARC-2 criteria. Of 857 patients who received TAVR, 172 (20%) had an alternative access procedure. Of these, 45 (26%) were TA, 67 (39%) TAo, 17 (10%) TSub, and 43 (25%) TCa procedures. The preference for non-TF access site was different between the two countries (US: TA 39%, TAo 52%, TSub 9%; TCa 0% vs. France: TA 9%, TAo 23%, TSub 11%, and TCa 57%, P-value < .001). Most patients who underwent TAo TAVR were older women (median age: TA 82, TAo 84, TSub 81, TCa 81, P-value = 0.043; female gender: TA 32 (27%), TAo 30 (55%), TSub 10 (41%), TCa 27 (37%), P-value = .021). The predicted Society of Thoracic Surgery risk of mortality was similar among groups (TA 7%, TAo 7%, TSub 6%, TCa 7%, P-value= .738). No differences were observed in the frequency of para-valvular leak, intra-procedural bleeding, vascular complications, conversion to open-heart surgery, or development of acute kidney injury. The highest in-hospital mortality was observed in the TAo group (TA 2%, TAo 15%, TSub 0%, TCa 2%, P-value = .014). However, hospital length of stay, one-month, and one-year mortality were similar among non-TF techniques., Conclusion: Although regional differences exist in the choice of alternative access techniques, centers with high technical expertise can provide a safe alternative to traditional TF TAVR. TAo TAVR was associated with higher in-hospital mortality than other non-TF approaches, and this may have reflected patient rather than procedural factors. All alternative access techniques had similar mortality rates and clinical outcomes at one-year follow-up. Trans-carotid access is safe and feasible compared to other non-TF access techniques., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objective: We aimed to analyse the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and elevated gradients after aortic valve in valve (ViV), and to evaluate predictors and associations with clinical outcomes of this adverse event., Methods: A total of 910 aortic ViV patients were investigated. Elevated residual gradients were defined as ≥20 mm Hg. PPM was identified based on the indexed effective orifice area (EOA), measured by echocardiography, and patient body mass index (BMI). Moderate and severe PPM (cases) were defined by European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) criteria and compared with patients without PPM (controls)., Results: Moderate or greater PPM was found in 61% of the patients, and severe in 24.6%. Elevated residual gradients were found in 27.9%. Independent risk factors for the occurrence of lower indexed EOA and therefore severe PPM were higher gradients of the failed bioprosthesis at baseline (unstandardised beta -0.023; 95% CI -0.032 to -0.014; P<0.001), a stented (vs a stentless) surgical bioprosthesis (unstandardised beta -0.11; 95% CI -0.161 to -0.071; P<0.001), higher BMI (unstandardised beta -0.01; 95% CI -0.013 to -0.007; P<0.001) and implantation of a SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT/SAPIEN 3 transcatheter device (unstandardised beta -0.064; 95% CI -0.095 to -0.032; P<0.001). Neither severe PPM nor elevated gradients had an association with VARC II-defined outcomes or 1-year survival (90.9% severe vs 91.5% moderate vs 89.3% none, P=0.44)., Conclusions: Severe PPM and elevated gradients after aortic ViV are very common but were not associated with short-term survival and clinical outcomes. The long-term effect of poor post-ViV haemodynamics on clinical outcomes requires further evaluation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DD is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Abbott. SB is a proctor and consultant for Medtronic and a proctor for Boston Scientific and JenaValve. RL is a member of the Medtronic advisory board. SG is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Surmodics, Osprey Medical and Boston Scientific and also repots research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and VA Office of Research and Development. EF reports consulting and proctoring for Edwards Lifesciences. DH is a member of the Medtronic advisory board. TZ reports lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. MJR is a consultant for Medtronic, Abbott and Boston Scientific. SW reports institutional research grants from Amgen, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Biotronik and St. Jude Medical. NMvM reports research grant support from Medtronic, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, Claret and Essential Medical. NB has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and speaker honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Abbott. AC is part of the speakers bureau for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Abbott, and also reports proctoring for Medtronic. J-MS reports research grants and speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. No other conflicts of interest were reported., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Aortic regurgitation (AR) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with an increased risk of mortality. In severe cases, abrupt hemodynamic changes may occur with a sudden increase in left ventricular end-diastolic pressure that results in frank pulmonary edema, hypoxia, and cardiogenic shock. Here, the case is reported of a patient who developed severe AR immediately after valve deployment that led to severe hemodynamic compromise. The procedural techniques necessary for the immediate management of severe transvalvular and paravalvular AR are described.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has emerged as a less-invasive therapeutic option for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease. The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of TAVR when performed with PCI during the same hospitalization. We identified patients using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample between the years 2011 and 2013. A total of 22,344 TAVRs were performed between 2011 and 2013. Of these, 21,736 (97.3%) were performed without PCI (TAVR group) while 608 (2.7%) along with PCI (TAVR + PCI group). Among the TAVR + PCI group, 69.7% of the patients had single-vessel, 22.2% had 2-vessel, and 1.6% had 3-vessel PCI. Drug-eluting stents were more commonly used than bare-metal stents (72% vs 28%). TAVR + PCI group witnessed significantly higher rates of mortality (10.7% vs 4.6%) and complications: vascular injury requiring surgery (8.2% vs 4.2%), cardiac (25.4% vs 18.6%), respiratory (24.6% vs 16.1%), and infectious (10.7% vs 3.3%), p <0.001% for all, compared with the TAVR group. The mean length of hospital stay and cost of hospitalization were also significantly higher in the TAVR + PCI group. The propensity score-matched analysis yielded similar results. In conclusion, performing PCI along with TAVR during the same hospital admission is associated with higher mortality, complications, and cost compared with TAVR alone. Patients would perhaps be better served by staged PCI before TAVR., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: Evaluate the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in high-risk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Background: The use of MCS devices in elderly patients with multiple comorbidities undergoing TAVR is underexplored., Methods: All patients undergoing TAVR at a single tertiary academic center who required MCS during index procedure between 2008 and 2015 were included in a prospective database., Results: MCS was used in 9.4% (54/577) of all TAVRs (n = 52 Edwards Sapien and n = 2 CoreValves) of which 68.5% (n = 37) were used as part of a planned strategy, and 31.5% (n = 17) were used in emergency "bail-out" situations. IABP was the most commonly used device (87%) followed by Impella and ECMO (6% each). Among the MCS group, 22% required cardiopulmonary resuscitation during the procedure (n = 4 elective [11%] vs. n = 8 emergent [47%]) and 15% upgrade to a second device (Impella or CPB after IABP; n = 5 elective [14%] vs. n = 3 emergent [18%]). Median duration of support was 1-day. Device related complications were low (4%). In-hospital mortality in this extremely high-risk population was 24% (13/54) (11% [4/37] for elective cases and 53% [9/17] for emergency cases). Cardiogenic shock (50%) was the most common cause of in-hospital death. Cumulative all-cause 1-year mortality was 35% (19/54) (19% 97/370 for elective and 71% [12/17] for emergency cases)., Conclusion: Emergent use of MCS during TAVR in extremely high-risk population is associated with high short and long-term mortality rates. Early identification of patients at risk for hemodynamic compromise may rationalize elective utilization of MCS during TAVR., (© 2016, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objective: We investigated the long-term safety, efficacy and clinical outcomes associated with transaortic (TAO) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the United States., Background: We previously reported the technical feasibility and short-term safety of TAO TAVR. Compared to transapical (TAP) access, the TAO approach was associated with shorter median intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) and more favorable technical learning curve. However, outcomes data beyond 30 days were lacking and the longer-term clinical consequences of this strategy were unknown., Methods: Mortality outcomes at 1 year (and longer) of 44 consecutive patients who underwent TAO TAVR in our institution were compared with that of 76 consecutive patients who underwent TAP TAVR at our site. Risk-adjusted analysis was performed in propensity-matched patients (25 from each group) to account for baseline differences., Results: TAO TAVR was associated with a trend towards lower all-cause mortality at 1 year compared to TAP TAVR (18% vs. 34%, P=0.09 in the overall sample; 12% vs. 40%, P=0.05 in the matched cohort). The higher probability of survival with TAO TAVR persisted after a median follow-up period of 23 months (hazard ratio [HR]=1.96, P=0.06 in the overall sample; HR=3.4, P=0.01 in the matched cohort). Cardiovascular mortality at 1 year was lower with TAO TAVR (2% vs. 22%, P=0.01 in the overall sample; 4% vs. 28%, P=0.05 in the matched cohort). ICU LOS (shorter in the TAO group) and implantation of second prosthetic valve (higher incidence in the TAP group) were independent predictors of long-term mortality., Conclusion: The outcomes associated with TAO TAVR compare favorably with TAP TAVR. Our results appear to corroborate the long-term safety and efficacy of the TAO approach in TAVR patients with inadequate iliofemoral access., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The use of percutaneous aortic balloon balvotomy (PABV) in high surgical risk patients has resurged because of development of less invasive endovascular therapies. We compared outcomes of concomitant PABV and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with PABV alone during same hospitalization using nation's largest hospitalization database. We identified patients and determined time trends using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, procedure code for valvulotomy from Nationwide Inpatient Sample database 1998 to 2010. Only patients >60 years with aortic stenosis were included. Primary outcome included in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes included procedural complications, length of stay (LOS), and cost of hospitalization. Total 2,127 PABV procedures were identified, with 247 in PABV + PCI group and 1,880 in the PABV group. Utilization rate of concomitant PABV + PCI during same hospitalization increased by 225% from 5.1% in 1998 to 1999 to 16.6% in 2009 to 2010 (p <0.001). Overall in-hospital mortality rate and complication rates in PABV + PCI group were similar to that of PABV group (10.3% vs 10.5% and 23.4% vs 24.7%, respectively). PABV + PCI group had similar LOS but higher hospitalization cost (median [interquartile range] $30,089 [$21,925 to $48,267] versus $18,421 [$11,482 to $32,215], p <0.001) in comparison with the PABV group. Unstable condition, occurrence of any complication, and weekend admission were the main predictors of increased LOS and cost of hospital admission. Concomitant PCI and PABV during the same hospitalization are not associated with change in in-hospital mortality, complications rate, or LOS compared with PABV alone; however, it increases the cost of hospitalization., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We explored the efficacy, safety, and clinical consequences of on-label and off-label transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the real-world setting., Background: The transcatheter heart valve (THV) was initially approved only for transfemoral (TF) delivery (on-label use) during TAVR in inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Because of lack of alternative options in TAVR-eligible patients with inadequate TF access, other routes have been utilized for THV implantation (off-label use), outcomes of which were previously unknown., Methods: Consecutive patients with severe inoperable AS who underwent clinical TAVR at our site were enrolled in a prospective database. Fifty subjects underwent TF-TAVR (on-label group), while non-TF routes were utilized in 60 subjects (off-label group). Procedural events, 30-day clinical outcomes, and 1-year all-cause mortality data were analyzed., Results: Technical device success was similar between on-label and off-label groups (88% vs. 87%, respectively; P = 0.92), as was the incidence of procedural complications and 30-day clinical events. The on-label group had lower 1-year all-cause death rate (12%) compared to the off-label group (32%; P = 0.02). The 1-year all-cause mortality in the off-label group was comparable to published clinical trial and registry data on TAVR, and appeared lower than historical outcomes with conservative medical therapy., Conclusion: On-label use of the THV in the real-world setting was associated with favorable survival outcomes compared to off-label TAVR and historical data. Off-label use of the THV appeared to be safe and effective when used in select patients with inoperable AS who are not eligible for TAVR via TF approach., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: To assess the impact of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) national coverage determination (NCD) on access for patients with aortic stenosis (AS) with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in a tertiary care center., Background: TAVR has given hope to patients with AS who are deemed inoperable. The effects of the NCD on access to patients with AS has not been evaluated., Materials and Methods: A total of 94 inoperable AS patients were evaluated and treated from December 2011 through June of 2012 with TAVR. Patients who underwent transfemoral (TF) vs. non-TF access were compared. The CMS NCD was released on May 1, 2012 and on July 1, 2012, the nontransfemoral access program was put on hold due to lack of reimbursement., Results: Patients in the TF (n = 33) and non-TF access (n = 61) groups were similar in age (85.2 ± 6.3 vs. 84.8 ± 6.6 P = 0.74) and STS mortality (9.38 ± 5.33 vs. 7.91 ± 3.69, P = 0.074). The iliofemoral arteries were larger diameter in the TF group (7.72 ± 1.49 vs. 6.21 ± 1.78, P < 0.001) and males (7.39 ± 1.81 vs. 6.1 ± 1.61 P < 0.001). More women underwent valve implantation via non-TF access (73 vs. 23%, P = 0.03). After the NCD, 21 patients who previously qualified for non-TF TAVR would not be reimbursed by CMS. Four died soon after., Conclusions: After the NCD, the proportion of inoperable patients with severe AS that can be treated with TAVR was greatly reduced due the lack of reimbursement for TAVR via non-TF access. This effect is particularly pronounced in women. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Aims: We sought to assess if bivalirudin use during balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) would affect clinical outcomes compared with heparin., Methods and Results: We compared the outcomes of consecutive patients who underwent elective or urgent BAV with intraprocedural use of bivalirudin or heparin at two high-volume centres. All in-hospital events post BAV were adjudicated by an independent, blinded clinical events committee. Of 427 patients, 223 patients (52.2%) received bivalirudin and 204 (47.8%) received heparin. Compared with patients who received heparin, patients who received bivalirudin had significantly less major bleeding (4.9% vs. 13.2%, p=0.003). Net adverse clinical events (NACE, major bleeding or major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]) were also reduced (11.2% vs. 20.1%, p=0.01). There was no significant difference in the rates of MACE (mortality, myocardial infarction or stroke, 6.7% vs. 11.3%, p=0.1), or vascular complications (major, 2.7% vs. 2.0%; minor, 4.5% vs. 4.9%; p=0.83). After multivariate analysis controlling for vascular preclosure, the use of bivalirudin remained independently associated with reduced major bleeding (OR 0.37; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.84; p=0.02) while the association was attenuated in propensity-adjusted analysis (OR 0.44, 95% CI: 0.18 to 1.07, p=0.08)., Conclusions: In this registry of patients with severe aortic stenosis, bivalirudin as compared to heparin resulted in improved in-hospital outcomes post BAV in terms of reduced major bleeding, similar MACE and reduced NACE. If verified in a randomised study and extended to the transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) population, these results might indicate a potential benefit for patients undergoing such procedures.

Objectives: This study sought to determine the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) associated with different methods of isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR)-transfemoral (TF), transapical (TA), and transaortic (TAo) catheter-based valve replacement and conventional surgical approaches., Background: The relative incidences of AF associated with the various access routes for AVR have not been well characterized., Methods: In this single-center, retrospective cohort study, we evaluated a total of 231 consecutive patients who underwent AVR for degenerative aortic stenosis (AS) between March 2010 and September 2012. Patients with a history of paroxysmal, persistent, or chronic AF, with bicuspid aortic valves, and patients who died within 48 h after AVR were excluded. A total of 123 patients (53% of total group) qualified for inclusion. Data on documented episodes of new-onset AF, along with all clinical, echocardiographic, procedural, and 30-day follow-up data, were collated., Results: AF occurred in 52 patients (42.3%). AF incidence varied according to the procedural method. AF occurred in 60% of patients who underwent surgical AVR (SAVR), in 53% after TA-TAVR, in 33% after TAo-TAVR cases, and 14% after TF-TAVR. The episodes occurred at a median time interval of 53 (25th to 75th percentile, 41 to 87) h after completion of the procedure. Procedures without pericardiotomy had an 82% risk reduction of AF compared with those with pericardiotomy (adjusted odds ratio: 0.18; 95% confidence interval: 0.05 to 0.59)., Conclusions: AF was a common complication of AVR with a cumulative incidence of >40% in elderly patients with degenerative AS who underwent either SAVR or TAVR. AF was most common with SAVR and least common with TF-TAVR. Procedures without pericardiotomy were associated with a lower incidence of AF., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The goal of this study was to examine the impact of reasons for surgical inoperability on outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Background: Patients with severe aortic stenosis may be deemed inoperable due to technical or clinical reasons. The relative impact of each designation on early and late outcomes after TAVR is unclear., Methods: Patients were studied from the inoperable arm (cohort B) of the randomized PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) trial and the nonrandomized continued access registry. Patients were classified according to whether they were classified as technically inoperable (TI) or clinically inoperable (CLI). Reasons for TI included porcelain aorta, previous mediastinal radiation, chest wall deformity, and potential for injury to previous bypass graft on sternal re-entry. Reasons for CLI were systemic factors that were deemed to make survival unlikely., Results: Of the 369 patients, 23.0% were considered inoperable for technical reasons alone; the remaining were judged to be CLI. For TI, the most common cause was a porcelain aorta (42%); for CLI, it was multiple comorbidities (48%) and frailty (31%). Quality of life and 2-year mortality were significantly better among TI patients compared with CLI patients (mortality 23.3% vs. 43.8%; p < 0.001). Nonetheless, TAVR led to substantial survival benefits compared with standard therapy in both inoperable cohorts., Conclusions: Patients undergoing TAVR based solely on TI have better survival and quality of life improvements than those who are inoperable due to clinical comorbidities. Both TI and CLI TAVR have significant survival benefit in the context of standard therapy. (THE PARTNER TRIAL: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894)., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become an alternative intervention in high-risk and inoperable patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. The procedure has been associated with favorable clinical outcomes and safety profile in patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD). We describe a case of improved kidney function in a patient with ESRD without further need for dialysis after TAVR., (Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objective: To assess the feasibility and outcomes in patients undergoing transvenous transseptal (TS) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Background: TS approach for TAVR was abandoned in favor of retrograde transfemoral, transaortic, or transapical approaches. TS TAVR may still be warranted in patients for whom no other approach is feasible., Methods: Observational consecutive case series at a single center, to evaluate technical outcomes in inoperable patients with aortic stenosis who had contraindications for other approaches and who underwent TAVR via a transvenous TS antegrade approach using the Edwards-Sapien (ES) valve., Results: Over a 4-month period, 9 patients underwent TS TAVR with 26 mm (n = 4) and 23 mm (n = 5) ES valves. Mean age was 84.5 ± 6.6 years and Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was 7.8 ± 2.8%. Specific contraindications for other access included iliofemoral arterial diameter <7 mm in 9 (100%), porcelain aorta in 6 (66%) patients, multiple (≥2) sternotomies in 2 (22%) patients, severe pulmonary disease in 3 (33%), extreme frailty in 1 (11%), spinal stenosis with impaired ability to rehabilitate postsurgery in 1 (11%) and apical left ventricular thrombus in 1 (11%) patient. Antegrade deployment of the ES prosthetic valve was technically feasible in 8 patients. Major bleeding occurred in 4 patients, two patients suffered acute kidney injury without need for dialysis and one patient required a permanent pacemaker. The median (25th, 75th percentiles) fluoroscopy time was 49 (34, 81) minutes and contrast volume was 150 (120, 225) ml. No patient had hemodynamically significant post-TAVR aortic insufficiency nor damage to the mitral valve. At 6 months follow-up, there were no cerebrovascular events or rehospitalizations and mean NYHA Class improved from 3.4 to 1.7., Conclusions: The antegrade TS approach to TAVR is a technically feasible option for "no-access" patients. Prospective assessment of the safety and efficacy of this approach in the current era warrants further study., (Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: With the expansion in the use of transcatheter valve therapies for aortic stenosis, the incidence of hemodynamically significant paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) has become a clinical challenge., Methods: The study population consisted of those patients with either acute significant PVR immediately post-Edwards SAPIEN (ES) aortic valve implantation, requiring additional maneuvers during the index transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or symptomatic PVR requiring treatment by transcatheter closure at a later date. All the patients were assessed within 24 hrs, 30 days, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months after the procedure., Results: A total of 100 consecutive patients underwent ES TAVR (62% with 23 mm and 38% with 26 mm valve), of them 27% (27/100) were identified to have hemodynamically significant PVR requiring additional percutaneous interventions during or after the index procedure. Patient's mean age was 85 ± 12 years and 74% (20/27) were male. The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeon Score was 11.3% (range 4.6-17.6%), 59% had a 23 mm and 41% had a 26 mm ES valve. There was no difference in the occurrence of PVR between a) two valve sizes-23 mm (16/62) vs. 26 mm (11/38) (P = 0.817) and b) the two approaches-transfemoral (15/48) vs. transapical (TA) (12/52) (P = 0.37). A total of 32 procedures were performed on the 27 patients: one patient required four and two required two procedures each. There were 19 repeat ballooning, seven valve in valve and six transcatheter device closure procedures. The approach was retrograde in 66%, antegrade transeptal in 6% and antegrade TA in 28%. The procedural success rate was 90.6%, the total 30-day, 3 months and 6 months mortality rate was 7.4, 18.5, and 22% respectively. At the time of final analysis a total of 56% (15/27) had completed a 12 month follow-up., Conclusion: The management of PVR in the TAVR era is a technical challenge. We present our experience and propose a management approach., (© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: This study sought to investigate the technical feasibility and safety of the transaortic (TAO) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) approach in patients not eligible for transfemoral (TF) access by using a device commercially available in the United States., Background: A large proportion of candidates for TAVR have inadequate iliofemoral vessels for TF access. The transapical route (TAP) is the current alternative but is associated with less favorable outcomes. Other access options need to be explored., Methods: Forty-four consecutive patients with inoperable, severe aortic stenosis underwent TAO TAVR in our institution. Procedural and 30-day clinical outcomes data were compared with data from 76 consecutive patients who underwent TAP TAVR at our site. Technical learning curves were assessed by comparing outcomes of the first 20 cases with the subsequent patients who underwent each procedure., Results: The TAO and TAP TAVR groups were similar in terms of device success according to Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria (89% vs. 84%; p = 0.59) and rates of the 30-day combined safety endpoint of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, major stroke, disabling bleeding, severe acute kidney injury, and valve reintervention (20% vs. 33%; p = 0.21). The TAO approach, compared with TAP TAVR, was associated with lower combined bleeding and vascular event rate (27% vs. 46%; p = 0.05), shorter median intensive care unit length of stay (3 vs. 6 days; p = 0.01), and a favorable learning curve., Conclusions: TAVR via the TAO approach is technically feasible, seems to be associated with favorable outcomes, and expands the current alternative options for access sites in patients with inoperable aortic stenosis who are ineligible for TF TAVR., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is an increasingly common treatment of critical aortic stenosis. Many aortic stenosis patients have concomitant left ventricular dysfunction, which can instigate the formation of thrombus resistant to anticoagulation. Recent trials evaluating transcatheter aortic valve replacement have excluded patients with left ventricular thrombus. We present a case in which an 86-year-old man with known left ventricular thrombus underwent successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement under cerebral protection.

Objectives: To evaluate feasibility and technical outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) who have undergone high-risk procedures with continuous flow left ventricular (LV) assist, with the Impella 2.5 system (Abiomed, Danvers, MA)., Background: In preparation for transcatheter aortic valve implantation, an increasing number of high-risk patients with severe AS and left ventricular dysfunction are currently considered for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) and balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV). Hemodynamic support may be required in some patients., Methods: We reviewed procedural and clinical findings and 30-day outcomes in patients with symptomatic AS who underwent high-risk percutaneous procedures supported by the Impella 2.5 system. All patients carried a high-risk of operative mortality. Impella was used during PCI, BAV, and for hemodynamic support during emergencies., Results: Over a 14-month period, 21 patients with AS underwent insertion of Impella prior to high-risk PCI (n = 3), BAV with subsequent PCI (n = 8), BAV alone (n = 7), or during cardiac arrest immediately following BAV (n = 3). The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) predicted mortality risk was 14% (range 7.3-24.7%). Impella was inserted successfully in all patients attempted. Retrograde advancement of two catheters across the aortic valve (for concomitant BAV in 15 patients) was technically feasible. Retrograde continuous flow LV assist produced a reduction in LV end-diastolic pressure and an increase in arterial pressure. Periprocedural complications occurred in 19% (n = 4) patients, with no periprocedural deaths. Mortality at 30 days was 14.2%., Conclusion: Our data suggests that continuous flow LV assist with Impella 2.5 can be used in high-risk patients with severe AS who require periprocedural hemodynamic support., (Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

We present a case of an 83-year-old female with past medical history of rheumatic fever associated mitral stenosis for which she underwent mitral commissurotomy 25 years prior to presentation. Subsequently, she underwent coronary artery bypass grafting and mitral valve replacement with a bio-prosthetic valve 8 years prior to presentation. Presently, she started experiencing worsening dyspnea and heart failure symptoms. Echocardiography showed mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction with severe aortic stenosis and pulmonary hypertension. The bioprosthetic mitral valve was functioning normally. We performed right and left heart catheterization for evaluation. Peak aortic gradient was 50 mm Hg with a mean gradient of 39 mm Hg. Aortic valve area was calculated to be 0.31 cm(2). However, simultaneous measurement of left ventricular and wedge pressures showed a significant gradient of 11 mm Hg across the mitral valve with a calculated mitral valve area of 0.4 cm(2). Because of discordant information between echocardiographic and hemodynamic data, we proceeded with trans-septal puncture to directly measure left atrial pressures. Simultaneous left atrial and left ventricular pressure measurement demonstrated a mean gradient of 4 mm Hg across the mitral valve with an area calculated at 1.9 cm(2). We review the tracings in detail and discuss the pitfalls of using pulmonary capillary wedge pressure as a surrogate for left atrial pressure., (Copyright © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)