Comparison of Figulla Flex® and Amplatzer™ devices for atrial septal defect closure: A meta-analysis

Background: Atrial septal defect (ASD) is one of the most common congenital heart diseases. Percutaneousclosure is the preferred treatment, but certain complications remain a concern. The most common devices are AMPLATZER™ (ASO) (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA) and Figulla Flex® septal occluders (FSO) (Occlutech GmbH, Jena, Germany). The present study aimed to assess main differences in outcomes.Methods: A systematic search in Pubmed and Google scholarship was performed by two independent reviewers for any study comparing ASO and FSO. Searched terms were “Figulla”, “Amplatzer”, and “atrial septal defect”. A random-effects model was used.Results: A total of 11 studies including 1770 patients (897 ASO; 873 FSO) were gathered. Baseline clinical and echocardiographic characteristics were comparable although septal aneurysm was more often reported in patients treated with ASO (32% vs. 25%; p = 0.061). Success rate (94% vs. 95%; OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.38–1.71; p = 0.58) and peri-procedural complications were comparable. Procedures were shorter, requiring less fluoroscopy time with an FSO device (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.20–0.97; p = 0.003). Although the global rate of complications in long-term was similar, the ASO device was associated with a higher rate of supraventricular arrhythmias (14.7% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.009).Conclusions: Percutaneous closure of ASD is a safe and effective, irrespective of the type of device. No differences exist regarding procedural success between the ASO and FSO devices but the last was associated to shorter procedure time, less radiation, and lower rate of supraventricular arrhythmias in follow-up. Late cardiac perforation did not occur and death in the follow-up was exceptional

Conduction Disturbances After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Current Status and Future Perspectives

International audienceTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a well-accepted option for treating patients with aortic stenosis at intermediate to high or prohibitive surgical risk. TAVR-related conduction disturbances, mainly new-onset left bundle-branch block and advanced atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacemaker implantation, remain the most common complication of this procedure. Furthermore, improvements in TAVR technology, akin to the increasing experience of operators/centers, have translated to a major reduction in periprocedural complications, yet the incidence of conduction disturbances has remained relatively high, with perhaps an increasing trend over time. Several factors have been associated with a heightened risk of conduction disturbances and permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVR, with prior right bundle-branch block and transcatheter valve type and implantation depth being the most commonly reported. New-onset left bundle-branch block and the need for permanent pacemaker implantation may have a significant detrimental association with patients' prognosis. Consequently, strategies intended to reduce the risk and to improve the management of such complications are of paramount importance, particularly in an era when TAVR expansion toward treating lower-risk patients is considered inevitable. In this article, we review the available evidence on the incidence, predictive factors, and clinical association of conduction disturbances after TAVR and propose a strategy for the management of these complications

Valve-in-Valve Procedure in Failed Transcatheter Aortic Valves

International audienc

Valve-in-Valve Procedure in Failed Transcatheter Aortic Valves

International audienc

CLINICAL STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF PREEXISTING PATIENT-PROSTHESIS MISMATCH ON VALVE-IN-VALVE PERFORMANCE

66th Annual Scientific Session and Expo of the American-College-of-Cardiology (ACC), Washington, DC, MAR 17-19, 2017International audienceno abstrac

Haemodynamic outcomes following aortic valve-in-valve procedure

Background and objectives: Transcatheter aortic valve- in-valve implantation (ViV) has emerged as a valuable technique to treat failed surgical bioprostheses (BPs) in patients with high risk for redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Small BP size (≤21 mm), stenotic pattern of degeneration and pre-existing prosthesis– patient mismatch (PPM) have been associated with worse clinical outcomes after ViV. However, no study has evaluated the actual haemodynamic benefit associated with ViV. This study aims to compare haemodynamic status observed at post-ViV, pre-ViV and early after initial SAVR and to determine the factors associated with worse haemodynamic outcomes following ViV, including the rates of high residual gradient and ‘haemodynamic futility’. Methods: Early post-SAVR, pre-ViV and post-ViV echocardiographic data of 79 consecutive patients who underwent aortic ViV at our institution were retrospectively analysed. The primary study endpoint was suboptimal valve haemodynamics (SVH) following ViV defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 as the presence of high residual aortic mean gradient (≥20 mm Hg) and/or at least moderate aortic regurgitation (AR). Haemodynamic futility of ViV was defined as <10 mm Hg decrease in mean aortic gradient and no improvement in AR compared with pre-ViV. Results: SVH was found in 61% of patients (57% high residual gradient, 4% moderate AR) after ViV versus 24% early after SAVR. Pre-existing PPM and BP mode of failure by stenosis were independently associated with the primary endpoint (OR: 2.87; 95% CI 1.08 to 7.65; p=0.035 and OR: 3.02; 95% CI 1.08 to 8.42; p=0.035, respectively) and with the presence of high residual gradient (OR: 4.38; 95% CI 1.55 to 12.37; p=0.005 and OR: 5.37; 95% CI 1.77 to 16.30; p=0.003, respectively) following ViV. Criteria of ViV haemodynamic futility were met in 7.6% overall and more frequently in patients with pre-existing PPM and stenotic BP (18.5%) compared with other patients (2.0%). ViV restored haemodynamic function to early post-SAVR level in only 34% of patients. Conclusion: Although ViV was associated with significant haemodynamic improvement compared with pre-ViV in >90% of patients, more than half harboured SVH outcome. Furthermore, only one-third of patients had a restoration of valve haemodynamic function to the early post-SAVR level. Pre-existing PPM and stenosis pattern of BP degeneration were the mian factors associated with SVH and haemodynamic futility following ViV. These findings provide strong support for the prevention of PPM at the time of initial SAVR and careful preprocedural patient screening

Transcarotid Compared With Other Alternative Access Routes for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Background The optimal access for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) who are not candidates for a transfemoral approach has not been elucidated. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety, feasibility, and early clinical outcomes of transcarotid TAVR compared with thoracic approaches. Methods and Results From a multicenter consecutive cohort of 329 alternative-access TAVR patients (2012-2017), we identified 101 patients who underwent transcarotid TAVR and 228 patients who underwent a transapical or transaortic TAVR. Preprocedural success and 30-day clinical outcomes were compared using multivariable propensity score analysis to account for between-group differences in baseline characteristics. All transcarotid cases were performed under general anesthesia, mainly using the left common carotid artery (97%). Propensity-matched groups had similar rates of 30-day all-cause mortality (2.1% versus 4.6%; P=0.37), stroke (2.1% versus 3.5%; P=0.67; transcarotid versus transapical/transaortic, respectively), new pacemaker implantation, and major vascular complications. Transcarotid TAVR was associated with significantly less new-onset atrial fibrillation (3.2% versus 19.0%; P=0.002), major or life-threatening bleeding (4.3% versus 19.9%; P=0.002), acute kidney injury (none versus 12.1%; P=0.002), and shorter median length of hospital stay (6 versus 8 days; P<0.001). Conclusions Transcarotid vascular access for TAVR is safe and feasible and is associated with encouraging short-term clinical outcomes. Our data suggest a clinical benefit of transcarotid TAVR with respect to atrial fibrillation, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, and length of stay compared with the more invasive transapical or transaortic strategies. Randomized studies are required to ascertain whether transcarotid TAVR yields equivalent results to other alternative vascular access routes