Search

Background: Paravalvular leakage (PVL) is a common finding after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and affects late clinical outcome. It is more frequent with self-expandable (SE) transcatheter-heart-valve (THV). Few is known about SE-THV expansion after implantation. The purpose is to assess SE-THV frame expansion and its possible influence on PVL. Methods: We designed a prospective pilot study to assess the time-course of SE-THV frame dimensions and PVL after TAVR. Consecutive patients undergoing TAVR with SE-THV were enrolled. Prosthesis fluoroscopy and echocardiography were prospectively performed immediately after TAVR (T0) and before discharge (T1) to grade PVL. Prosthesis diameters were assessed in 2 fluoroscopic orthogonal views. PVL reduction ≥1+ from T0 to T1 at echocardiography was the primary study endpoint. Results: Twenty-five patients were enrolled. Mean interval between T0 and T1 evaluations was 5 days. Grade 1 or 2 was present in 76% of patients at T0 and in 68% at T1 (P=0.034). A total of 7 patients (28%) improved PVL ≥1 grade from T0 to T1. Differences between T0 and T1 fluoroscopic diameters were not statistically significant. When comparing the diameter changes according to PVL evolution, patients with PVL improvement (as compared with those without) had significantly larger minimum diameter increase at both annulus/inflow (P=0.016) and outflow/distal edge (P=0.027). Conclusions: PVL may improve in the early days after SE-THV and those patients with PVL improvement may have THV frame expansion. Further studies are needed to confirm such preliminary observations and to establish the clinical relevance of this phenomenon.

Vascular surgery patients have multiple comorbidities and are at high risk for perioperative complications. Aortic repair surgery has greatly evolved in recent years, with an increasing predominance of endovascular techniques (EVAR). The incidence of cardiac complications is significantly reduced with endovascular repair, but high-risk patients require postoperative ST-segment monitoring. Open aortic repair may portend a prohibitive risk of respiratory complications that could be a contraindication for surgery. This risk is greatly reduced in the case of an endovascular approach, and general anesthesia should be avoided whenever possible in the case of endovascular repair. Preoperative renal function and postoperative kidney injury are powerful determinants of short- and long-term outcome, so that preoperative risk stratification and secondary prevention are critical tasks. Intraoperative renal protection with selective renal and distal aortic perfusion is essential during open repair. EVAR has lower rates of postoperative renal failure compared to open repair, with approximately half the risk for acute kidney injury (AKI) and one-third of the risk of hemodialysis requirement. Spinal cord ischemia used to be the most distinctive and feared complication of aortic repair. The risk has significantly decreased since the beginning of aortic surgery, with advances in surgical technique and spinal protection protocols, and is lower with endovascular repair. Endovascular repair avoids extensive aortic dissection and aortic cross-clamping and is generally associated with reduced blood loss and less coagulopathy. The intensive care physician must be aware that aortic repair surgery has an impact on every organ system, and the importance of early recognition of organ failure cannot be overemphasized.

Aims: There are limited data about the intraprocedural haemodynamic study performed immediately before and after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). We aimed to evaluate the acute haemodynamic impact of TAVI in patients with severe AS and to investigate invasive and non-invasive parameters predicting all-cause mortality. Methods and results: A total of 245 consecutive AS patients (43% male, mean age 80.3 ± 7.3 years) undergoing TAVI were enrolled. Intraprocedural left heart catheterization (LHC) and echocardiogram before and after TAVI were performed. The clinical endpoint was the death for any cause. LHC after TAVI revealed significant changes in aortic and left ventricular (LV) pressures, including indexes of intrinsic myocardial contractility and diastolic function such as positive dP/dT (1128.9 ± 398.7 vs. 806.3 ± 247.2 mmHg/s, P ˂ 0.001) and negative dP/dT (1310.7 ± 431.1 vs. 1075.1 ± 440.8 mmHg/s, P ˂ 0.001). Post-TAVI echo showed a significant reduction in LV end-diastolic (P = 0.036) and end-systolic (P ˂ 0.001) diameters, improvement in LV ejection fraction (from 55 ± 12% to 57.2 ± 10.5%, P ˂ 0.001), and pulmonary artery systolic pressure (42.1 ± 14.2 vs. 33.1 ± 10.7 mmHg, P < 0.001). After a mean follow-up time interval of 24 months, 47 patients died. Post-TAVI significant aortic regurgitation at echocardiography was the only independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio 5.592, confidence interval 1.932–16.184, P = 0.002). Conclusions: Left heart catheterization performed immediately before and after prosthesis release offers a unique insight in the assessment of LV adaptation to severe AS and the impact of TAVI on LV, catching changes in indexes of intrinsic contractility and myocardial relaxation. Aortic regurg

Introduction: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) requires changes in cannulation strategy and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) management when compared to the conventional approach (CAVR). We aimed at evaluating if these differences could influence perfusion-related quality parameters and impair postoperative outcomes. Methods: Overall, 339 consecutive patients underwent MIAVR or CAVR between 2014 and 2020 and were analyzed retrospectively. To account for baseline differences, a propensity-matching analysis was performed, obtaining two groups of 97 patients each. Results: MIAVR group had longer CPB time [107 (95–120) vs 95 (86–105) min, p =.003] than CAVR group. Of note, average pump flow rate index [2.4 (2.2–2.5) vs 2.7 (2.4–2.8) l/min/m2, p =.004] was lower in the MIAVR group. Mean arterial pressure was 73 = 9 mmHg vs 62 = 11 mmHg for the MIAVR and CAVR group, respectively (p <.001). Cell-salvaged blood was most commonly used in the MIAVR group (25.8% vs 11.3%, p =.02). Finally, CPB temperature was 32.8°C (32.1–34.8) for MIAVR group vs 34.9°C (33.2–36.1) for the CAVR group (p =.02). Postoperative complications were similar between groups. Conclusions: In conclusion, despite differences in CPB parameters in patients undergoing CAVR and MIAVR, the incidences of adverse outcomes were similar. However, compared to CAVR, MIAVR was associated with shorter durations of mechanical ventilation and hospital stay as well as less transfusion of blood products.