Premium
Techniques and outcomes of paravalvular leak repair after transcatheter aortic valve replacement
Author(s) -
Waterbury Thomas M.,
Reeder Guy S.,
Pislaru Sorin V.,
Cabalka Allison K.,
Rihal Charanjit S.,
Eleid Mackram F.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
catheterization and cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.988
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1522-726X
pISSN - 1522-1946
DOI - 10.1002/ccd.27224
Subject(s) - medicine , valve replacement , percutaneous , surgery , retrospective cohort study , adverse effect , cardiology , cardiac catheterization , single center , tamponade , stenosis
Objectives To investigate the feasibility, procedural success, and outcomes of paravalvular leak (PVL) closure in patients with prior transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Background PVL after TAVR is associated with adverse patient outcomes and increased mortality. Percutaneous PVL closure has emerged as a therapeutic strategy for addressing this issue, but data for transcatheter PVL repair after TAVR remains limited. Methods This is a single center retrospective review of PVL closure after TAVR. Patients with balloon‐expandable or self‐expanding prostheses were included. Baseline patient demographics, procedural characteristics, complications, and clinical outcomes were reviewed. Results A total of 18 patients with clinically significant PVL after TAVR referred for PVL closure were identified during the study period. Procedural success resulting in successful transcatheter occluder plug delivery was 78% (14 cases). Balloon postdilatation (2/4) and valve‐in‐valve (2/4) were used effectively in the remaining patients after an unsuccessful PVL closure attempt. PVL grading by echocardiography decreased from moderate or severe to < moderate in 13 patients (72%). Adverse events including cardiac tamponade and acute kidney injury occurred in 1 case each. One‐month all‐cause mortality was 11%. Conclusion In selected patients, percutaneous PVL repair following TAVR is feasible and effective for both balloon‐expandable and self‐expanding prostheses. Most patients undergoing PVL closure after TAVR require a single occluder plug placement for reduction in PVL to mild or less.