RESUMO
We present a case of posterior papillary muscle rupture associated with severe eccentric mitral regurgitation following transcatheter aortic valve implantation, that was successfully treated with transcatheter edge to edge mitral repair and review similar cases in literature.
Assuntos
Ruptura Cardíaca , Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca , Insuficiência da Valva Mitral , Substituição da Valva Aórtica Transcateter , Humanos , Substituição da Valva Aórtica Transcateter/efeitos adversos , Insuficiência da Valva Mitral/diagnóstico por imagem , Insuficiência da Valva Mitral/etiologia , Insuficiência da Valva Mitral/cirurgia , Músculos Papilares/diagnóstico por imagem , Resultado do Tratamento , Ruptura Cardíaca/diagnóstico por imagem , Ruptura Cardíaca/etiologia , Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca/efeitos adversosRESUMO
Suture-mediated closure device and Figure-of-Eight suture are commonly used to achieve hemostasis after use of large bore venous access. Although both methods of closure are commonly used in clinical practice, a head-to-head comparison in a controlled setting has not been performed. Patients presenting to a single center for elective left atrial appendage occlusion or transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair were randomized to large bore venous closure using the Perclose ProGlide suture-based closure or a Figure-of-Eight suture closure. The patients were followed for 1 month after the procedure. Primary outcome, a composite of access site large ecchymosis, hematoma, infection, pain, need for unscheduled venous ultrasound and need for transfusion, was compared between the 2 arms. A total of 40 patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to the 2 venous closure strategies. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Perclose ProGlide arm required use of more devices for hemostasis (1.5 ± 0.5 vs 1 ± 0 respectively, p <0.0001), and there was a significant difference in the cost of closure device ($367.00 ± 122.00 vs $1.00 ± 0 respectively, p <0.001). At 1 month post-procedure, the primary outcome occurred in 4 patients (20%) in the Perclose arm and 7 (35%) patients in the Figure-of-Eight arm, a difference that was not statistically significant (p = 0.48). Time to hemostasis between Figure-of-Eight and Perclose arms did not reach statistical significance (2.5 ± 2.1 vs 3.7 ± 2.3, p = 0.09). In conclusion, both Perclose ProGlide suture-based device and Figure-of-Eight closure are equally feasible and safe for patients who underwent large bore venous access. Figure-of-Eight-based closure is more cost effective.
Assuntos
Hemostasia Cirúrgica , Dispositivos de Oclusão Vascular , Humanos , Artéria Femoral/cirurgia , Hemostasia , Hemostasia Cirúrgica/métodos , Técnicas Hemostáticas , Técnicas de Sutura , Suturas , Resultado do Tratamento , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos VascularesRESUMO
Objectives: This article aims to evaluate the accuracy of the color-Doppler-based technique to evaluate residual mitral regurgitation post TEER. Background: The evaluation of residual mitral regurgitation (MR) post-mitral transcutaneous edge-to-edge repair (mitral TEER) is a critical determinant in patients' outcomes. The common methods used today, based on the integration of color flow Doppler parameters, may be misleading because of the multiple jets and high velocities created by the TEER devices. Methods: Patients undergoing TEER at Hadassah hospital were recruited between 2015 and 2019. Post-procedural MR was evaluated using the integrated qualitative approach as recommended by the guidelines. In addition, the MR volume for each patient was calculated by subtracting the forward stroke volume (calculated by multiplying the LVOT area with the velocity time integral of the LVOT systolic flow) from the total stroke volume (calculated by the biplane Simpson method of discs). We compared the two methods for concordance. Results: Overall, 112 cases were enrolled. In 55.4% of cases, the volumetric residual MR was milder than the MR severity assessed by the guidelines' recommended method. In 25.1%, the MR severity was similar in both methods. In 16.2%, the MR severity was worse when calculated using the volumetric method (pValue < 0.001, Kappameasure of agreement = 0.053). The lower residual MR degree using the volumetric approach was mostly observed in patients classified as "moderate" by the integrated approach. Conclusions: MR severity after TEER is often overestimated by the guideline-recommended integrative method when compared with a volumetric method. Alternative methods should be considered to assess the MR severity after mitral TEER.