Vascular complications associated with percutaneous left ventricular assist device placement: A 10-year US perspective.

BACKGROUND: Over the last decade, there has been a significant increase in the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist devices(p-LVADs). p-LVADs are being increasingly used during complex coronary interventions and for acute cardiogenic shock. These large bore percutaneous devices have a higher risk of vascular complications. We examined the vascular complication rates from the use of p-LVAD in a national database. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of the National In-patient Sample (NIS) dataset from 2005 till 2015. We used the ICD-9-CM procedure codes 37.68 and 37.62 for p-LVAD placement regardless of indications. We investigated common vascular complications, defining them by the validated ICD 9 CM codes. χ2 test and t test were used for categorical and continuous variables, respectively for comparison. RESULTS: A total of 31,263 p-LVAD placements were identified during the period studied. A majority of patients were male (72.68%) and 64.44% were white. The overall incidence of vascular complications was 13.53%, out of which 56% required surgical treatment. Acute limb thromboembolism and bleeding requiring transfusion accounted for 27.6% and 21.8% of all vascular complications. Occurrence of a vascular complication was associated with significantly higher in-hospital mortality (37.77% vs. 29.95%, p < .001), length of stay (22.7 vs. 12.2 days, p < .001) and cost of hospitalization ($ 161,923 vs. $ 95,547, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: There is a high incidence of vascular complications with p-LVAD placement including need for vascular surgery. These complications are associated with a higher in-hospital, LOS and hospitalization costs. These findings should be factored into the decision-making for p-LVAD placement.

Safety profiles of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure devices: An analysis of the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database from 2009 to 2016.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a viable option for AF patients who are unable to tolerate long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC). OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the safety of two commonly used percutaneous devices for LAA closure in the United States by analysis of surveillance data from the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database. METHODS: The MAUDE database was queried between May 1, 2006 and May 1, 2016 for LARIAT® (SentreHEART Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA) and WATCHMAN™ (Boston Scientific Corp., Marlborough, MA, USA) devices. Among 622 retrieved medical device reports, 356 unique and relevant reports were analyzed. The cumulative incidence of safety events was calculated over the study period and compared between the two devices. RESULTS: LAAC was performed with LARIAT in 4,889 cases. WATCHMAN was implanted in 2,027 patients prior to FDA approval in March 2015 and 3,822 patients postapproval. The composite outcome of stroke/TIA, pericardiocentesis, cardiac surgery, and death occurred more frequently with WATCHMAN (cumulative incidence, 1.93% vs. 1.15%; P = 0.001). The same phenomenon was observed when comparing the WATCHMAN pre- and postapproval experiences for the composite outcome, as well as device embolization, cardiac surgery, and myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: MAUDE-reported data show that postapproval, new technology adoption is fraught with increased complications. Improved collaboration between operators, device manufacturers, and regulators can better serve patients through increased transparency and practical postmarket training and monitoring mechanisms.

Safety and Feasibility of Rotational Atherectomy in Elderly Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) followed by transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD). In many, the coronary arteries are severely calcified and best treated with rotational atherectomy (RA). However, RA is not routinely performed in severe AS patients due to safety concerns. There is a paucity of data on the safety of RA in severe AS patients with calcific CAD. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 29 patients with severe AS who underwent elective RA-facilitated PCI at our center between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2015. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (mean age, 79.8 ± 8.8 years) were enrolled. Mean aortic valve area was 0.71 ± 0.20 cm², mean aortic valve gradient was 40.32 ± 9.88 mm Hg. All PCIs were successful (mean diameter stenosis, 86.3 ± 7.6%; mean burr size, 1.62 ± 0.19 mm). Nineteen patients (65.5%) required temporary pacemaker. Eight patients (27.6%) required vasopressors during PCI. There was a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR) during RA, but without clinical events. No procedure was aborted and there were no deaths or clinical myocardial infarctions. CONCLUSION: RA-facilitated PCI can be safely performed in elderly patients with severe AS and severely calcified CAD with low risk of complications. There was a significant but transient drop in SBP, DBP, MAP, and HR during RA. However, this was not associated with clinically significant adverse events.

Intravenous Adenosine Infusion is Safe and Well Tolerated During Coronary Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment in Elderly Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the safety of intravenous adenosine infusion during fractional flow reserve (FFR) evaluation of intermediate coronary lesions in severe aortic stenosis (AS). In severe AS, the extent of underlying coronary artery disease (CAD) can be an important determinant for deciding between surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Hemodynamic assessment of coronary lesion severity using FFR may reduce the extent of revascularization needed and make TAVR more feasible in higher-risk patients (compared with coronary artery bypass surgery with SAVR). METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively analyzed the demographic, clinical, and hemodynamic parameters of 72 patients with severe AS who underwent FFR procedure with intravenous adenosine infusion for hemodynamic assessment of intermediate coronary artery lesions. Severe AS patients were elderly, predominantly male, and had a high prevalence of peripheral arterial disease, prior myocardial infarction, left ventricular hypertrophy, and chronic kidney disease. Mean aortic valve area in these patients was 0.71 ± 0.24 cm². No patient with severe AS required discontinuation of the adenosine and all patients tolerated the infusion well. We observed a statistically significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR) during adenosine infusion compared with the baseline values. However, no clinically significant adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: In elderly patients with severe AS, adenosine infusion is safe and well tolerated during FFR evaluation of intermediate coronary lesions. There was a significantly greater drop in SBP, DBP, MAP, and HR with adenosine infusion as compared with baseline values. This, however, was not associated with clinically significant adverse events.

Endocardial (Watchman) vs epicardial (Lariat) left atrial appendage exclusion devices: Understanding the differences in the location and type of leaks and their clinical implications.

BACKGROUND: Watchman and Lariat left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion devices are associated with LAA leaks postdeployment. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence, characteristics, and clinical significance of these leaks. METHODS: We performed a multicenter prospective observational study of all patients who underwent LAA closure. Baseline, procedural, and imaging variables along with LAA occlusion rates at 30-90 days and 1-year postprocedure were compared. RESULTS: A total of 478 patients (219 with the Watchman device and 259 with the Lariat device) with successful implants were included. Patients in the Lariat group had a higher CHADS2 (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age >74 years, diabetes, stroke) score and a larger left atrium and LAA. A total of 79 patients (17%) had a detectable leak at 1 year. More patients in the Watchman group had a leak compared with those in the Lariat group (46 [21%] vs 33 [14%]; P = .019). All the leaks were eccentric (edge effect) in the Watchman group and concentric (gunny sack effect) in the Lariat group. The size of the leak was larger in the Watchman group than in the Lariat group (3.10 ± 1.5 mm vs 2.15 ± 1.3 mm; P = .001). The Watchman group had 1 device embolization requiring surgery and 2 pericardial effusions requiring pericardiocentesis. In the Lariat group, 4 patients had cardiac tamponade requiring urgent surgical repair. Three patients in each group had a cerebrovascular accident and were not associated with device leaks. CONCLUSION: The Lariat device is associated with a lower rate of leaks at 1 year as compared with the Watchman device, with no difference in rates of cerebrovascular accident. There was no correlation between the presence of residual leak and the occurrence of cerebrovascular accident.

Initial experience with post Lariat left atrial appendage leak closure with Amplatzer septal occluder device and repeat Lariat application.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage (LAA) ligation with the Lariat device is a therapeutic option to prevent thromboembolic stoke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) at high risk for systemic thromboembolization and bleeding related to use of anticoagulation. In rare cases, this procedure could leave the LAA incompletely ligated with continued risk of stroke. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence and characteristics of LAA leak following ligation using the Lariat device and the feasibility of leak closure with the Amplatzer septal occluder device or a repeat Lariat application. METHODS: Seventy-one consecutive patients who underwent LAA ligation by the Lariat device were followed-up with transesophageal echocardiography to evaluate for the presence of appendage leaks, characterization of the leaks, and the presence of any thrombus. Patients with LAA leaks underwent definite closure of the leak. RESULTS: Six patients had LAA leaks with a mean leak size of 4.3 ± 0.6 mm. All leaks were concentric in nature. None of the patients had LAA thrombus. Leaks in 5 of these patients were successfully closed using an Amplatzer septal occluder device (St. Jude Medical); the leak in the sixth patient was closed using a repeat Lariat procedure. CONCLUSION: LAA leaks from incomplete ligation of the LAA following the Lariat procedure are not uncommon and could be successfully closed with an Amplatzer septal occluder device or a repeat Lariat procedure.