Literature DB >> 35794658

Perioperative left ventricular perforation in incomplete TAVI and completion of the procedure after surgical repair.

Giuseppe Nasso1, Giuseppe Santarpino1,2,3, Gaetano Contegiacomo4, Giuseppe Balducci1, Antongiulio Valenzano1, Enrico Moranti1, Domenico Scaringi2, Giuseppe Speziale1, Ignazio Condello5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) continues to grow worldwide. Despite increased operator experience, evolution of the technique, and deflectable catheters, major complications still occur in ≤ 6% up to 8% of cases. Such major complications have been associated with a 2- to threefold increase in 30-day mortality. Complications specifically involving the aorta, aortic valve annulus, or left ventricle are rare, occurring in only 0.2-1.1% of cases. CASE
PRESENTATION: We report the case of a 65-year-old female patient with left ventricular lateral wall perforation during incomplete implantation of a TAVI device, and successive percutaneous completion after surgical repair of the lesion under cardiopulmonary bypass. The surgical strategy and the type of surgical treatment depend on the type of perforation. In general, repair of the lesion and aortic valve replacement are performed. Removal of the TAVI prosthesis and excision of the native aortic valve are standard parts of this repair.
CONCLUSION: Here we propose a safe alternative for the completion of the TAVI approach after surgical repair, which requires close coordination between the members of the heart team (anesthesiologist, perfusionist, cardiologist, nurse and cardiac surgeon).
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cardiopulmonary bypass; Left ventricular perforation; Transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35794658      PMCID: PMC9261075          DOI: 10.1186/s13019-022-01925-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg        ISSN: 1749-8090            Impact factor:   1.522


Introduction

The use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) continues to grow worldwide [1]. Despite increased operator experience, evolution of the technique, and deflectable catheters, major complications still occur in ≤ 6% up to 8% of cases. Such major complications have been associated with a 2- to threefold increase in 30-day mortality [2]. Complications specifically involving the aorta, aortic valve annulus, or left ventricle are rare, occurring in only 0.2% to 1.1% of cases [3]. In general, repair of the lesion and aortic valve replacement are performed. Removal of the TAVI prosthesis and excision of the native aortic valve are standard parts of this repair.

Patient information

A 65-year-old female patient undergoing TAVI for severe aortic stenosis. The study was submitted and approved by institutional ethics committee.

Diagnostic assessment

Echocardiography showed a peak aortic valve velocity of 4.33 m/s, with a peak pressure gradient of 94 mmHg and a mean pressure gradient of 56 mmHg. Left ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic dimensions were 31.7 mm and 50.0 mm, respectively. The internal diameter of the aortic annulus was 30.7 mm and the aortic sinus diameter was 37.3 mm. The aortic valve area was 0.87 cm2. Computed tomography revealed a bicuspid aortic valve of 27.3 mm in diameter according to an aortic annulus perimeter of 85.6 mm, or an aortic valve of 27.4 mm in diameter according to a valve orifice area of 569 mm2.

Therapeutic intervention

A 29 mm Venus-A valve (CoreValve Evolut R, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) was implanted. When we used a 20 Fr balloon to dilate the aortic valve, the patient's systolic blood pressure dropped to 70 mmHg in 5 min. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) showed a rapidly increasing pericardial effusion. A single-lumen central venous catheter was inserted immediately into the pericardial cavity through the fourth left intercostal space. Five hundred milliliter bright red bloody hemopericardium was drawn out quickly and infused back into the body through the left femoral artery. Blood pressure recovered after the intervention, but pericardial effusion was not improved as monitored by TEE. Simultaneously, the bloody hemopericardium was continuously pumped back into the femoral artery, to prevent any thrombi being infused into the patient, the patient was fully heparinized. Slight perivalvular leak was detected by fluoroscopy and TEE. We observed that the hemopericardium was with bright red blood rather than blue-black color, suggesting a high risk for left ventricular perforation. Indeed, color flow Doppler imaging clearly showed that a bundle of blood from the left ventricle ejected to the pericardial cavity. The patient was anesthetized and intubated, and an urgent full sternotomy (FS) was performed. In order to maintain hemodynamic stability, full anticoagulation with heparin was administered for immediate institution of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Mild hypothermic (34 °C) CPB was established with central cannulation. CPB is performed during simultaneous volume substitution and inotropic support, and active search for a possible problem. This type of resuscitation requires close coordination between the members of the heart team. The correct diagnosis is established by echocardiography, aortography, and/or coronary angiography, or clinically by direct exploration through a median sternotomy. On the left ventricular surface, we found a 1 cm gap, which was 12 mm away from the lateral wall of the left ventricle in proximity of the distal coronary circumflex artery. Blood ejected to the outside of the left ventricle from the gap with every heartbeat (Fig. 1). We performed cardioplegic arrest with cross-clamping. We used two interrupted horizontal mattress sutures with 2-0 Prolene on two felts to close the cleft. CPB and cross-clamp time was 65 min and 23 min, respectively. After protamine administration, the interventional cardiologist completed the TAVI procedure with post-dilation with a 23 Fr balloon and eliminated the residual periprosthetic leak, this was possible as the TAVI valve had been deployed in place, and all that was required was the balloon dilation. Then, the cardiac surgeon inserted the drains and closed the chest.
Fig. 1

1 cm gap on the left ventricular surface

1 cm gap on the left ventricular surface

Follow-up and outcomes

No myocardial infarction, stroke, incision infection, or conduction block occurred post-operatively. The patient was discharged 9 days later.

Discussion

Owais T. et Al. report that Left ventricular (LV) perforation is one of the rare and most serious complications of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). A small LV cavity, a hypercontractile state, a thin muscular wall, and a narrow aorto-mitral angle may be considered potential predictors of the occurrence of LV perforation during TAVI [4]. Nielsen et al. report in their cases TAVI series, that the limitation of the prolonged presence of a stiff guide in LV reduce the risk of perforation [5]. Safe anchoring of the valve should be balanced between using a larger valve to eliminate paravalvular leakage or a smaller valve to prevent possible annulus rupture. Therefore, precise pre-procedural analysis of the device landing zone is mandatory. This includes determination of the size and morphology of all anatomical structures, meticulous identification of possible factors for annular rupture, and correct interpretation of the findings [6]. Although time consuming, this analysis is the most important part of a TAVI procedure, and the heart team can plan a tailored strategy for the individual patient. Furthermore, the characteristics of the guidewires and their appropriate use are also necessary for the success of the procedure. The excessive tension of the preformed guide to the left ventricular apex during prosthesis release was certainly a contributory cause of the event we recorded. Improvements in devices, procedural techniques, and imaging tools may simplify TAVI and additionally reduce possible complications [7]. The surgical strategy and the type of surgical treatment depend on the type of rupture. In general, repair of the lesion and aortic valve replacement are performed. Removal of the TAVI prosthesis and excision of the native aortic valve are standard parts of this repair [8]. Alternative or bailout treatments, such as placing a second transcatheter valve to seal an annular tear for isolated rupture of the aortic annulus or to close a rupture may not always be successful and are generally not recommended [9]. Here we propose a safe alternative for completion of the TAVI approach after surgical repair, which requires close coordination between the members of the heart team (anesthesiologist, perfusionist, cardiologist, nurse and cardiac surgeon).
  9 in total

1.  Clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement using valve academic research consortium definitions: a weighted meta-analysis of 3,519 patients from 16 studies.

Authors:  Philippe Généreux; Stuart J Head; Nicolas M Van Mieghem; Susheel Kodali; Ajay J Kirtane; Ke Xu; Craig Smith; Patrick W Serruys; A Pieter Kappetein; Martin B Leon
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2012-04-11       Impact factor: 24.094

2.  Minimizing the risk for left ventricular rupture during transcatheter aortic valve implantation by reducing the presence of stiff guidewires in the ventricle.

Authors:  Niels Erik Nielsen; Julia Baranowska; Peter Bramlage; Jacek Baranowski
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2019-09-01

Review 3.  Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: review of the nature, management, and avoidance of procedural complications.

Authors:  Jean-Bernard Masson; Jan Kovac; Gerhard Schuler; Jian Ye; Anson Cheung; Samir Kapadia; Murat E Tuzcu; Susheel Kodali; Martin B Leon; John G Webb
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 11.195

4.  Pathophysiological Factors Associated with Left Ventricular Perforation in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation by Transfemoral Approach.

Authors:  Tamer Owais; Mohammad El Garhy; Jürgen Fuchs; Kushtrim Disha; Sameh Elkaffas; Martin Breuer; Bernward Lauer; Thomas Kuntze
Journal:  J Heart Valve Dis       Date:  2017-07

Review 5.  Emergent cardiac surgery during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): a weighted meta-analysis of 9,251 patients from 46 studies.

Authors:  Holger Eggebrecht; Axel Schmermund; Philipp Kahlert; Raimund Erbel; Thomas Voigtländer; Rajendra H Mehta
Journal:  EuroIntervention       Date:  2013-01-22       Impact factor: 6.534

6.  Anatomical and procedural features associated with aortic root rupture during balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Marco Barbanti; Tae-Hyun Yang; Josep Rodès Cabau; Corrado Tamburino; David A Wood; Hasan Jilaihawi; Phillip Blanke; Raj R Makkar; Azeem Latib; Antonio Colombo; Giuseppe Tarantini; Rekha Raju; Ronald K Binder; Giang Nguyen; Melanie Freeman; Henrique B Ribeiro; Samir Kapadia; James Min; Gudrun Feuchtner; Ronen Gurtvich; Faisal Alqoofi; Marc Pelletier; Gian Paolo Ussia; Massimo Napodano; Fabio Sandoli de Brito; Susheel Kodali; Bjarne L Norgaard; Nicolaj C Hansson; Gregor Pache; Sergio J Canovas; Hongbin Zhang; Martin B Leon; John G Webb; Jonathon Leipsic
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 7.  Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low risk patients: a review of PARTNER 3 and Evolut low risk trials.

Authors:  Joao Braghiroli; Kunal Kapoor; Torin P Thielhelm; Tanira Ferreira; Mauricio G Cohen
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2020-02

8.  Rupture of the device landing zone during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a life-threatening but treatable complication.

Authors:  Miralem Pasic; Axel Unbehaun; Stephan Dreysse; Semih Buz; Thorsten Drews; Marian Kukucka; Giuseppe D'Ancona; Burkhardt Seifert; Roland Hetzer
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 6.546

9.  Experience in treating a case of the cardiac rupture during transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedure.

Authors:  Wei-Min Zhang; Jian-Mao Hong; Fan He; Guo-Sheng Fu; Fei-Cheng Yu
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 2.628

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.