Misdeployment of Edwards Sapien Valve in Transfemoral Aortic Valve Implantation Due to Iatrogenic Endarterectomy

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is an expanding procedure thus far restricted to a target population of old and high-comorbidity patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. The need for bulky devices (up to 24F) combined with the high prevalence of peripheral vascular disease in these patients explains the increased risk of vascular complications in transfemoral Edwards Sapien (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, Calif) transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures, with a rate of 20% for the transfemoral arm of either the Placement of AoRTic traNscathetER valves in the European Union (PARTNER EU) trial or the SOURCE Registry.1,2

Permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: impact on late clinical outcomes and left ventricular function.

BACKGROUND Very few data exist on the clinical impact of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of PPI after transcatheter aortic valve implantation on late outcomes in a large cohort of patients. METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 1556 consecutive patients without prior PPI undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation were included. Of them, 239 patients (15.4%) required a PPI within the first 30 days after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. At a mean follow-up of 22±17 months, no association was observed between the need for 30-day PPI and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.30; P=0.871), cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.17; P=0.270), and all-cause mortality or rehospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.30; P=0.980). A lower rate of unexpected (sudden or unknown) death was observed in patients with PPI (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.85; P=0.023). Patients with new PPI showed a poorer evolution of left ventricular ejection fraction over time (P=0.017), and new PPI was an independent predictor of left ventricular ejection fraction decrease at the 6- to 12-month follow-up (estimated coefficient, -2.26; 95% confidence interval, -4.07 to -0.44; P=0.013; R(2)=0.121). CONCLUSIONS The need for PPI was a frequent complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, but it was not associated with any increase in overall or cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for heart failure after a mean follow-up of ≈2 years. Indeed, 30-day PPI was a protective factor for the occurrence of unexpected (sudden or unknown) death. However, new PPI did have a negative effect on left ventricular function over time.

Edge vascular response after polymer-free vs. polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation.

BACKGROUND It is unknown if lack of polymer can provoke a different edge response in drug-eluting stents. The aim of this study was to compare edge vascular response between polymer-free paclitaxel-eluting stent (PF-PES) and polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents (PB-PES). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 165 eligible patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were prospectively randomized 1:1 to receive either PF-PES or PB-PES. Those patients with paired intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) after procedure and at 9-month follow-up were included in this analysis.Seventy-six patients with 84 lesions, divided into PB-PES (38 patients, 41 lesions) and PF-PES groups (38 patients, 43 lesions) had paired post-procedure and 9-month follow-up IVUS and were therefore included in this substudy. There was a significant lumen decrease at the proximal edge of PF-PES (from 9.02±3.06 mm(2)to 8.47±3.05 mm(2); P=0.040), and a significant plaque increase at the distal edges of PF-PES (from 4.39±2.73 mm(2)to 4.78±2.63 mm(2); P=0.004). At the distal edge there was a significant plaque increase in the PF-PES compared to PB-PES (+8.0% vs. -0.6%, respectively; P=0.015) with subsequent lumen reduction (-5.2% vs. +6.0%, respectively; P=0.024). CONCLUSIONS PF-PES had significant plaque increase and lumen reduction at the distal edge as compared to PB-PES, probably due to difference in polymer-based drug-release kinetics between the 2 platforms.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in very elderly patients: immediate results and medium term follow-up.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate immediate transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) results and medium-term follow-up in very elderly patients with severe and symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS This multicenter, observational and prospective study was carried out in three hospitals. We included consecutive very elderly (> 85 years) patients with severe AS treated by TAVI. The primary endpoint was to evaluate death rates from any cause at two years. RESULTS The study included 160 consecutive patients with a mean age of 87 ± 2.1 years (range from 85 to 94 years) and a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 18.8% ± 11.2% with 57 (35.6%) patients scoring ≥ 20%. Procedural success rate was 97.5%, with 25 (15.6%) patients experiencing acute complications with major bleeding (the most frequent). Global mortality rate during hospitalization was 8.8% (n = 14) and 30-day mortality rate was 10% (n = 16). Median follow up period was 252.24 ± 232.17 days. During the follow-up period, 28 (17.5%) patients died (17 of them due to cardiac causes). The estimated two year overall and cardiac survival rates using the Kaplan-Meier method were 71% and 86.4%, respectively. Cox proportional hazard regression showed that the variable EuroSCORE ≥ 20 was the unique variable associated with overall mortality. CONCLUSIONS TAVI is safe and effective in a selected population of very elderly patients. Our findings support the adoption of this new procedure in this complex group of patients.