Real world outcomes using 20 mm balloon expandable SAPIEN 3/ultra valves compared to larger valves (23, 26, and 29 mm)-a propensity matched analysis

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: Small balloon expandable valves have higher echocardiographic transvalvular gradients and rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) compared to larger valves. However, the impact of these echocardiographic findings on clinical outcomes is unknown. We sought to determine the clinical outcomes of 20 mm SAPIEN 3 (S3 BEV) compared to larger S3 BEV in relation to echocardiographic hemodynamics. METHODS: Using the STS/ACC transcatheter valve registry, we performed a propensity-matched comparison of patients undergoing treatment of native aortic valve stenosis using transfemoral, balloon-expandable implantation of 20 mm and ≥ 23 mm S3 BEVs. Baseline and procedure characteristics, echocardiographic variables and survival were analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of 1-year mortality. RESULTS: After propensity matching of the 20 mm and ≥ 23 mm SAPIEN 3 valves, 3,931 pairs with comparable baseline characteristics were identified. Small valves were associated with significantly higher echocardiographic gradients at discharge (15.7 ± 7.1 mmHg vs. 11.7 ± 5.5 mmHg, p \u3c 0.0001) and severe PPM rates (21.5% vs. 9.7%, p \u3c 0.0001). There was no significant difference in 1-year all-cause mortality (20 mm: 13.0% vs. ≥23 mm: 12.7%, p = 0.72) or other major adverse event rates and outcomes between the two cohorts. Based on a multivariable analysis, elevated discharge mean gradient (\u3e20 mmHg), severe PPM and the use of 20 mm versus ≥23 mm were not independent predictors of 1-year mortality. CONCLUSION: SAPIEN 3 20 mm valves were associated with higher echocardiographic gradients, and severe PPM rates compared to larger valves but these factors were not associated with significant differences in 1-year all-cause mortality or rehospitalization

Patent foramen ovale closure with vena cava thrombus: You need an arm and a neck!

In patients with challenging femoral vein anatomy, transcatheter patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure can be safely and effectively be done through the jugular veins guided by ICE from the arm. This novel technique can potentially save resources (anesthesia and TEE) and provide an option for patients without a femoral option

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