Vikas Singh1, Abdulla A Damluji2, Rodrigo Mendirichaga2, Carlos E Alfonso2, Claudia A Martinez2, Donald Williams2, Alan W Heldman2, Eduardo J de Marchena2, William W O'Neill3, Mauricio G Cohen4. 1. Interventional Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Cardiovascular Division, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, and the Elaine and Sydney Sussman Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory, University of Miami Hospital, Miami, Florida. 3. Cardiovascular Division, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan. 4. Cardiovascular Division, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, and the Elaine and Sydney Sussman Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory, University of Miami Hospital, Miami, Florida. mgcohen@med.miami.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in high-risk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: The use of MCS devices in elderly patients with multiple comorbidities undergoing TAVR is underexplored. METHODS: All patients undergoing TAVR at a single tertiary academic center who required MCS during index procedure between 2008 and 2015 were included in a prospective database. RESULTS: MCS was used in 9.4% (54/577) of all TAVRs (n = 52 Edwards Sapien and n = 2 CoreValves) of which 68.5% (n = 37) were used as part of a planned strategy, and 31.5% (n = 17) were used in emergency "bail-out" situations. IABP was the most commonly used device (87%) followed by Impella and ECMO (6% each). Among the MCS group, 22% required cardiopulmonary resuscitation during the procedure (n = 4 elective [11%] vs. n = 8 emergent [47%]) and 15% upgrade to a second device (Impella or CPB after IABP; n = 5 elective [14%] vs. n = 3 emergent [18%]). Median duration of support was 1-day. Device related complications were low (4%). In-hospital mortality in this extremely high-risk population was 24% (13/54) (11% [4/37] for elective cases and 53% [9/17] for emergency cases). Cardiogenic shock (50%) was the most common cause of in-hospital death. Cumulative all-cause 1-year mortality was 35% (19/54) (19% 97/370 for elective and 71% [12/17] for emergency cases). CONCLUSION: Emergent use of MCS during TAVR in extremely high-risk population is associated with high short and long-term mortality rates. Early identification of patients at risk for hemodynamic compromise may rationalize elective utilization of MCS during TAVR.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in high-risk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: The use of MCS devices in elderly patients with multiple comorbidities undergoing TAVR is underexplored. METHODS: All patients undergoing TAVR at a single tertiary academic center who required MCS during index procedure between 2008 and 2015 were included in a prospective database. RESULTS:MCS was used in 9.4% (54/577) of all TAVRs (n = 52 Edwards Sapien and n = 2 CoreValves) of which 68.5% (n = 37) were used as part of a planned strategy, and 31.5% (n = 17) were used in emergency "bail-out" situations. IABP was the most commonly used device (87%) followed by Impella and ECMO (6% each). Among the MCS group, 22% required cardiopulmonary resuscitation during the procedure (n = 4 elective [11%] vs. n = 8 emergent [47%]) and 15% upgrade to a second device (Impella or CPB after IABP; n = 5 elective [14%] vs. n = 3 emergent [18%]). Median duration of support was 1-day. Device related complications were low (4%). In-hospital mortality in this extremely high-risk population was 24% (13/54) (11% [4/37] for elective cases and 53% [9/17] for emergency cases). Cardiogenic shock (50%) was the most common cause of in-hospital death. Cumulative all-cause 1-year mortality was 35% (19/54) (19% 97/370 for elective and 71% [12/17] for emergency cases). CONCLUSION: Emergent use of MCS during TAVR in extremely high-risk population is associated with high short and long-term mortality rates. Early identification of patients at risk for hemodynamic compromise may rationalize elective utilization of MCS during TAVR.
Authors: Javier Castrodeza; Ana Mª Serrador Frutos; Ignacio J Amat-Santos; Inés Sayago Silva; José Alberto San Román Journal: Cardiol J Date: 2019 Impact factor: 2.737
Authors: Vikas Singh; Rodrigo Mendirichaga; Ignacio Inglessis-Azuaje; Igor F Palacios; William W O'Neill Journal: Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med Date: 2018-04-23
Authors: Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula; Sri Harsha Patlolla; Harigopal Sandhyavenu; Saarwaani Vallabhajosyula; Gregory W Barsness; Shannon M Dunlay; Kevin L Greason; David R Holmes; Mackram F Eleid Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-07-09 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Hans Huang; Christopher P Kovach; Sean Bell; Mark Reisman; Gabriel Aldea; James M McCabe; Danny Dvir; Creighton Don Journal: J Interv Cardiol Date: 2019-11-03 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Bo Fu; Shaopeng Zhang; Shilin Dai; Zhigang Guo; Nan Jiang; Jiange Han; Li Yang; Yanwen Shang; Yanhe Ma; Thomas Puehler; Rodrigo Bagur Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2021-08
Authors: Adrian Attinger-Toller; Matthias Bossard; Giacomo Maria Cioffi; Gregorio Tersalvi; Mehdi Madanchi; Andreas Bloch; Richard Kobza; Florim Cuculi Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-03-23