Left Bundle Branch Block after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation with Edwards Sapien 3 Valve: Influence of the Valve Depth Implantation

ObjectivesThe aim of this study is to determine the relation between the valve depth implantation and the new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) in patients treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using Edwards Sapien 3 (S3) prosthesis.BackgroundLBBB is the most common conduction disturbance after TAVI. The S3 has been associated with a higher incidence of LBBB. A deep valve implant could be related to new-onset LBBB with S3.MethodsSeventy-six consecutive patients treated with transfemoral TAVI with S3 were included. Electrocardiogram (ECG) registries were recorded at baseline, after the procedure, and before discharge. Valve depth implantation was determined in 40 patients by off-line analysis of the two/three-dimensional transeophageal echocardiogram (TEE) images, with measure of the valve stent percentage under the aortic annulus. Previous and new conduction anomalies were documented; and patient, anatomic and procedural characteristics were retrospectively analyzed.ResultsComplete atrioventricular block (AVB) incidence was 2.9%. LBBB after TAVI appeared in 39% of patients, being transient in almost half of the cases (permanent LBBB rate 20%).Patients with new-onset LBBB after TAVI were older, with a higher STS Score and a wider basal QRS.A deep valve position was associated with new-onset LBBB, with a ROC curve establishing a cut-off point of 34% of depth implant as risk factor for new-onset LBBB (sensitivity and specificity 0.8).ConclusionsIn transfemoral TAVI with S3 prosthesis, a higher valve implantation (<34% of valve stent introduced into the ventricle) may minimize the new-onset LBBB, especially in old and high-risk patients with a wide basal QRS.     

Edwards Sapien 3 transcatheter aortic valve implantation for management of severe aortic regurgitation in a teenage patient with corrected atrioventricular septal defect and progressive left ventricular dysfunction

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is mostly performed in elderly patients with severely calcified aortic valves. There are few reports about its use for pure aortic regurgitation, few reports about its use in adolescent patients and to the best of our knowledge no report about the use of an Edwards Sapien valve in the aortic position in an underage patient after surgically corrected congenital heart disease (CHD). Decompensation of a complex CHD can be difficult to manage and may require unusual solutions. We report a case of a teenage patient presenting with progressive aortic regurgitation and deterioration of left ventricular function after multiple surgical procedures for an atrioventricular septal defect (AVSD). As “bridge‐to‐transplant,” we performed a transcatheter aortic valve implantation using a balloon‐expandable Sapien 3 prosthesis. At 6 month follow‐up, the patient remained clinically stable with no rehospitalization due to heart failure.     

Findings of a mixed transfemoral aortic valve implantation program using Edwards and CoreValve devices

Introduction and objectives

Transfemoral implantation of an Edwards SAPIEN (ES) or Medtronic CoreValve (MCV) aortic valve prosthesis is an alternative to surgical replacement for patients with severe aortic stenosis and a high surgical risk. The study's aim was to compare results obtained with these two devices.

Methods

Prospective observational study of transfemoral prosthesis implantation performed at our center.

Results

Of the 76 patients (age 83 ± 6 years, 63% female, logistic EuroSCORE 18 ± 9) included, 50 were assigned the ES and 26 the MCV device. There was no difference between the groups in age, sex, functional class, valve area, associated conditions, or EuroSCORE. Implantation was successful in 84% of the ES group and 100% of the MCV group (P = .04). There were three cases of tamponade, two aortic dissections and one valve malposition in the ES group. The two groups had similar vascular access complication rates (26% vs. 23%; P = NS), but pacemaker need was greater with the MCV (10% vs. 39%; P = .003). Mortality rates at 30 days were 12% and 20% (P = NS) in the ES and MCV groups, respectively, and at 1 year, 24% and 20% (P = NS), respectively. After a follow-up of 367 ± 266 days in the ES group and 172 ± 159 days in the MCV group, three patients died. Clinical improvement was maintained in other patients and no echocardiographic changes were observed.

Conclusions

In-hospital mortality, the complication rate and medium-term outcomes were similar with the two devices. The only difference observed was a higher implantation success rate with the MCV, although at the expense of a greater frequency of atrioventricular block.Full English text available from: www.revespcardiol.org     

Risk for permanent pacemaker after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a comprehensive analysis of the literature

Risk for Permanent Pacemaker After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. Background: Permanent pacemaker (PM) requirement is a known complication after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). There are, however, no systematic data concerning this complication. Objective: To determine the incidence and potential predictors of permanent PM requirement after TAVI based on published literature. Methods: We conducted a MEDLINE search to identify potentially relevant literature dealing with PM requirement after TAVI. Data were collected on paper extraction forms by 2 independent investigators. Results: There were 32 relevant published studies comprising data of 5,258 patients without an implanted PM before TAVI. An Edwards‐Sapiens® prosthesis (ESP) was implanted in 2,887 patients, whereas 2,371 patients received a CoreValve® prosthesis (CVP). The crude incidence of PM implantation after TAVI was 15%. Six hundred and fourteen of 2,371 (25.8%) CVP patients and 189 of the 2,887 (6.5%) ESP patients had to receive a permanent PM (odds ratio [OR] 4.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.12–5.86, P < 0.001). Presence of right bundle branch block (RBBB) before TAVI was a significant predictor for development of complete atrioventricular (AV) block and subsequent PM need (OR 1.358, 95% CI 1.001–1.841, P = 0.02). More than 90% of all AV‐block requiring PM implantation occurred immediately or within 7 days after TAVI. Conclusion: Patients undergoing TAVI with implantation of CVP are at significantly higher risk for development of AV block and subsequent need for permanent PM, particularly if RBBB preexists. Since AV block occurs in >90% within the first week after the procedure, careful monitoring should be performed for at least 7 days after TAVI.     

Clinical utility of a predictive model for paravalvular aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a self-expandable prosthesis

Background

A predictive model for Paravalvular aortic regurgitation (PAR) integrating the left ventricular outflow tract-to-ascending aorta angle (LVOT-AO) and depth to the non-coronary cusp (NCC) after TAVI with CoreValve prosthesis (MCP) was retrospectively identified (2 × ∠LVOT-AO + [depth to NCC-10]2; cutoff = 50). However, the validity and clinical utility of this model remain unknown.

Prognostic impact of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

1. Download : Download high-res image (253KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

Fungal endocarditis after transfemoral aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was introduced in 2006 as an alternative for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) as treatment for patients with aortic stenosis. Endocarditis after TAVI has been anecdotally reported, but concerns aroused because SAVR is often needed to explant the endocarditic valve in a high risk patient previously deemed not to be a surgical candidate. We report a case of a patient who underwent TAVI because he was too high risk to undergo SAVR. Several months later, he developed an intermittent self‐limiting fever of unknown origin which eventually was diagnosed as endocarditis. The valve was surgically removed, and pathology showed an infection caused by Histoplasma capsulatum. The patient recovered fully and remains in good condition.© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Percutaneous implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis.

Recently, percutaneous aortic valve implantation has become an alternative technique to surgical valve replacement in patient at high risk for surgery. Our animal experimentation evaluated the technical feasibility of aortic valve replacement using a bovine pericardium valve sutured on a self-expandable stent in a sheep model. Precise implantation with satisfactory attachment on the adjacent tissues and absence of migration was obtain in 8 out of 14 animals. This study confirmed the feasibility of the endovascular implantation of a pericardium valve sutured on a self-expandable stent in a sheep model.