Emergency Alcohol Septal Ablation for Shock After TAVR: One More Option in the Toolbox

We hereby report a case of severe shock from left ventricular outflow tract obstruction following transcatheter aortic valve replacement that did not respond to medical therapy and had to be treated with emergent alcohol septal ablation (ASA). Emergent ASA should be considered for bail-out treatment for these refractory cases. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.

Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock due to Structural Heart Disease

Despite advances in cardiovascular care, managing cardiogenic shock caused by structural heart disease is challenging. Patients with cardiogenic shock are critically ill upon presentation and require early disease recognition and rapid escalation of care. Temporary mechanical circulatory support provides a higher level of care than current medical therapies such as vasopressors and inotropes. This review article focuses on the role of hemodynamic monitoring, mechanical circulatory support, and device selection in patients who present with cardiogenic shock due to structural heart disease. Early initiation of appropriate mechanical circulatory support may reduce morbidity and mortality

Procedural and Mid-Term Outcomes of Coronary Protection During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients at Risk of Coronary Occlusion: Insight From a Single-Centre Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND: Detailed procedural analysis and long-term data is limited for coronary protection (CP) during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for patients with high anatomical risk for coronary occlusion (CO). We aim to assess the procedural and mid-term outcomes of CP during TAVR. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent TAVR at Henry Ford Hospital, USA from January 2015 to August 2019 and identified those considered at risk of CO and underwent pre-emptive CP with or without subsequent chimney stenting (i.e. coronary stenting with intentional protrusion into the aorta). Procedural features, immediate and mid-term clinical outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS: Twenty-five out of 1166 (2.1%) patients underwent TAVR with CP, including 10 (40%) valve-in-valve procedures. Twenty-eight coronary arteries (Left: n = 11, Right: n = 11; Left + Right: n = 3) were protected. Eleven coronaries (39.3%) were electively chimney -stented due to angiographic evidence of coronary impingement (63.6%), tactile resistance while withdrawing stent (27.3%) and electrocardiogram change (9.1%). Twenty-four patients (24/25, 96%) had successful TAVR without CO. Procedure-related complications included stent-balloon entrapment (n = 1), stent entrapment (n = 1) and occlusive distal stent edge dissection (n = 1). After a mean follow-up of 19.1 months, there was 1 cardiac death but no target vessel re-intervention or myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that angiographic evidence of coronary impingement (63.6%) was the most common reason for stent deployment during TAVR with CP. The mid-term clinical outcome of CP with TAVR was favorable

Utility of cerebral embolic protection in non-TAVR transcatheter procedures

BACKGROUND: Cerebrovascular events that occur during structural and interventional procedures are a well known risk which is associated with increased mortality. The FDA has approved the use of the Sentinel device in TAVR. Hereby we report on our experience on the safety and efficacy of using Sentinel in a patient population undergoing non-TAVR transcatheter procedures. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a single center experience with using the Sentinel device for non-TAVR transcatheter procedures. RESULTS: We identified 33 patients (average age was 73.8 years, 36.7% females, and 30% with history of a prior stroke) felt to be at high risk for cerebroembolic events that underwent Sentinel device placement. Sentinel placement was successful in all patients. Examples of high risk features included high atheroma burden in the aortic arch, left sided valve vegetations, intra-cardiac thrombi and severe left sided valve calcifications/thrombi. No patients developed periprocedural stroke or vascular complications. CONCLUSION: Overall, the use of Sentinel for non-TAVR indications appears feasible and safe. The use of cerebral protection devices should be studied further in non-TAVR patients to establish its role and its benefits, especially with expanding the number of non-TAVR transcatheter interventions

Safety, feasibility, and outcomes of transcaval access for the delivery of Impella microaxial-flow pump 5.0 in patients with acute heart failure

Background: Transcaval access (TCA) may enable fully percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) without the hazards of vascular complication in patients with heart failure that require left ventricular unloading. Purpose: To review the safety, feasibility, and outcomes of using TCA to deliver Impella 5.0 MCS in patients with ischemic and non-ischemic systolic acute heart failure. Methods: This single center retrospective study included all patients that underwent TCA placement of a 5.0 Impella from June 2015 to January 2021. Demographic, clinical and procedural variables, and in-hospital outcomes were collected. The procedure was performed by electrifying a caval guidewire and advancing it into a pre-positioned aortic snare. After exchanging for a rigid guidewire, a 22 or 24Fr sheath was delivered into the aorta and then the Impella 5.0 was placed in the left ventricle through TCA sheaths. Results: A total of 43 patients were included in the analysis. The average age was 56.9 years (interquartile range [IQR], 52-65.5), of which, 70%(n=30) were males. Fifteen patients had non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and 28 had ischemic cardiomyopathy. Baseline average left ventricular ejection fraction prior to implantation was 23.6% (IQR, 13.75-29.75). 86% of the patients were in category C-D of the SCAI classification schema for cardiogenic shock (CS), 39.5% required inotropes and 48.8% required pressors prior to the procedure; 54% had a prior MCS in place. Only 18.6% of the cases had prior CT imaging reviewed for planning. TCA was successful in all attempted patients and the MCS delivery was achieved in 100% of the cohort. The available hemodynamic parameters prior and after Impella 5.0 implantation via Table 1 TCA are summarized in table 1. From the total cohort, only 29 patients survived to explant device and TCA sheath. The explant was successful in all patients using nitinol occluders; two patients required a covered stent at the arteriotomy site due to right sided heart failure from residual fistula; no surgical repair was necessary. All residual fistulous tracks were graded as1 from Impella insertion/removal site was observed in 9.3%,which didn\u27t require further intervention. No vascular complication of the access site was observed with TCA. During hospitalization, 20.9% had VT/VF and 4.7% a PEA after implantation (all CS patients). 13.9% of the patients had AKI requiring hemodialysis and no stroke was observed in the entire group. The average length of stay for entire cohort was 16.3 days (IQR, 3.25-18.75). Conclusions: Transcaval access of 5.0 Impella is safe and feasible under expert hands for patients where more conventional MCS devices do not provide enough support or have inadequate peripheral arterial access