A Completely Endovascular Solution for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Embolisation and Inversion into the Aortic Arch

Introduction: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has evolved into the preferred alternative to surgical valve replacement for severe aortic valve stenosis with high surgical risk. With expanding indications, life threatening complications including transcatheter aortic valve embolisation and inversion (TAVEI), in which the valve dislodges, inverts, and migrates caudally, may increase concomitantly. Report: An 80 year old male with severe aortic valve stenosis underwent balloon expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Valve embolisation into the aortic arch inverted the bioprothesis, excluding the option of fixation in the descending aorta. Through-valve thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) was performed after bifemoral snaring using a through-and-through wire technique and pulling the valve into the descending aorta. Discussion: TAVI is emerging as the preferred treatment for severe aortic valve stenosis and comes with unique procedural complications, such as life threatening transcatheter aortic valve embolisation and inversion (TAVEI). Although some authors prefer treating embolisation of a non-inverted balloon expandable valve into the aorta by using the valvuloplasty balloon to pull the valve distally and fixing it in the descending aorta, this risks further expansion of the valve and consequently fixing it in an undesirable position and is not possible if the valve inverts. Downstream placement of the valve by snaring with a guiding catheter covering/protecting a through-and-through wire technique, combined with through-valve TEVAR, provides a new bail out strategy for this serious complication and may reduce TAVEI associated mortality and morbidity

Invasiveness of previous treatment for peripheral arterial disease and risk of adverse cardiac events after coronary stenting

Patients with peripheral arterial disease (PADs), undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), have higher adverse event risks. The effect of invasiveness of PADs treatment on PCI outcome is unknown. This study assessed the impact of the invasiveness of previous PADs treatment (invasive or non-invasive) on event risks after PCI with contemporary drug-eluting stents. This post-hoc analysis pooled 3-year patient-level data of PCI all-comer patients living in the eastern Netherlands, previously treated for PADs. PADs included symptomatic atherosclerotic lesion in the lower or upper extremities; carotid or vertebral arteries; mesenteric arteries or aorta. Invasive PADs treatment comprised endarterectomy, bypass surgery, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, stenting or amputation; non-invasive treatment consisted of medication and participation in exercise programs. Primary endpoint was (coronary) target vessel failure: composite of cardiac mortality, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization. Of 461 PCI patients with PADs, information on PADs treatment was available in 357 (77.4%) patients; 249 (69.7%) were treated invasively and 108 (30.3%) non-invasively. Baseline and PCI procedural characteristics showed no between-group difference. Invasiveness of PADs treatment was not associated with adverse event risks, including target vessel failure (20.5% vs. 16.0%; HR: 1.30, 95%-CI 0.75–2.26, p = 0.35), major adverse cardiac events (23.3% vs. 20.4%; HR: 1.16, 95%-CI 0.71–1.90, p = 0.55), and all-cause mortality (12.1% vs. 8.3%; HR: 1.48, 95%-CI 0.70–3.13, p = 0.30). In PADs patients participating in PCI trials, we found no significant relation between the invasiveness of previous PADs treatment and 3-year outcome after PCI. Consequently, high-risk PCI patients can be identified by consulting medical records, searching for PADs, irrespective of the invasiveness of PADs treatment. Graphical abstract: (Figure presented.) Comparison of patients with non-invasive and invasive PADs treatment. PADs peripheral arterial disease, PCI percutaneous coronary intervention.</p

Ischemic Preconditioning in the Animal Kidney, a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) is a potent renoprotective strategy which has not yet been translated successfully into clinical practice, in spite of promising results in animal studies. We performed a unique systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies to identify factors modifying IPC efficacy in renal ischemia/reperfusion injury (IRI), in order to enhance the design of future (clinical) studies. An electronic literature search for animal studies on IPC in renal IRI yielded fifty-eight studies which met our inclusion criteria. We extracted data for serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen and histological renal damage, as well as study quality indicators. Meta-analysis showed that IPC reduces serum creatinine (SMD 1.54 [95%CI 1.16, 1.93]), blood urea nitrogen (SMD 1.42 [95% CI 0.97, 1.87]) and histological renal damage (SMD 1.12 [95% CI 0.89, 1.35]) after IRI as compared to controls. Factors influencing IPC efficacy were the window of protection (<24 h = early vs. ≥24 h = late) and animal species (rat vs. mouse). No difference in efficacy between local and remote IPC was observed. In conclusion, our findings show that IPC effectively reduces renal damage after IRI, with higher efficacy in the late window of protection. However, there is a large gap in study data concerning the optimal window of protection, and IPC efficacy may differ per animal species. Moreover, current clinical trials on RIPC may not be optimally designed, and our findings identify a need for further standardization of animal experiments

Risk of bias and study quality assessment.

<p><b>Top</b>: Reporting of five key study quality indicators was found to be poor in many cases. <b>Bottom</b>: Using SYRCLE's risk of bias tool, the risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition and other biases was assessed. Lack of (adequate) reporting of measures to reduce bias resulted in a high percentage of unclear risk of bias for most items.</p

Flow chart of study selection.

<p>The number of studies in each phase are shown between brackets.</p

Publication bias.

<p>Trim and fill analysis for studies on local IPoC indicates funnel plot asymmetry for respectively creatinine (A), BUN (C) and renal histology (E). The 95% confidence interval of Egger’s regression line (dashed lines) does not include the origin of the graph, indicating no small study effects for creatinine (B), BUN (D) and renal histology (F).</p

Meta-analysis blood urea nitrogen.

<p>The summary effects show a decrease in blood urea nitrogen after local or remote IPoC. One study investigating the combination of local and remote IPoC showed no effect. Data are presented as NMD and 95% CI. Within subgroup weights from random effects analysis are shown.</p