Concomitant percutaneous coronary intervention in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Background Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) frequently have coronary artery disease requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Usually, PCI and TAVI are performed in two separate procedures and current studies are investigating potential benefits regarding the order. However, the two interventions may also be performed simultaneously, thereby limiting the risk associated with repeated vascular access. Data evaluating benefit and harm of concomitant procedures are scarce. Aims Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate concomitant PCI (coPCI) in TAVI patients regarding Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) endpoints and long-term mortality. Methods A total of 2233 consecutive TAVI patients from the EVERY-VALVE registry were analyzed according to the VARC-3 endpoint definitions. A total of 274 patients had undergone TAVI and concomitant PCI (coPCI group). They were compared to 226 TAVI patients who had received PCI within 60 days before TAVI in a stepwise approach (swPCI group) and to the remaining 1733 TAVI patients who had not undergone PCI recently (noPCI group). Results Overall median age was 81.4 years, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.0%. Patients in the coPCI and in the swPCI group were predominantly male with reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction. Rates of VARC-3 composite endpoints technical success and 30-day device success were comparable between all three groups. Mortality rates at 3 years after TAVI were similar (coPCI, 34.2% vs. swPCI, 31.9% vs. noPCI, 34.0% p = 0.84). Conclusions coPCI during TAVI seems comparable in a retrospective analysis. Compared to a stepwise approach, it has similar rates of composite endpoints technical success and device success as well as long-term mortality

Suture-based vs. pure plug-based vascular closure devices for VA-ECMO decannulation–A retrospective observational study

BackgroundVeno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is a valuable treatment option for patients in cardiogenic shock, but complications during decannulation may worsen the overall outcome. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of suture-based to pure plug-based vascular closure devices for VA-ECMO decannulation.MethodsIn this retrospective study, the procedural outcome of 33 patients with suture-based Perclose ProGlide closure devices was compared to 38 patients with MANTA plug-based closure devices.ResultsRate of technically correct placement of closure devices was 88% in the suture-based group and 97% in the plug-based group (p = 0.27). There was a significant reduction of severe bleeding events during VA-ECMO decannulation in plug-based versus suture-based systems (3% vs. 21%, p = 0.04). Ischemic complications occurred in 6% with suture-based and 5% with plug-based device (p = 1.00). Pseudoaneurysm formation was detected in 3% in both groups (p = 1.00). No switch to vascular surgery due to bleeding after decannulation was necessary in both groups.ConclusionBased on our retrospective analysis, we propose that plug-based vascular closure should be the preferred option for VA-ECMO decannulation. This hypothesis should be further tested in a randomized trial