Iliofemoral artery predilation prior to transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with aortic valve stenosis and advanced peripheral artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the feasibility and safety of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) of the iliofemoral arteries (IFA) before transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (Tf-TAVI) in patients with advanced peripheral artery disease (PAD). BACKGROUND: Although Tf-TAVI represents the access of choice, alternative vascular access routes are preferred for patients displaying advanced PAD. PTA of the IFA represents a less invasive option, broadening the spectrum of patients eligible for Tf-TAVI. METHODS: All patients requiring PTA of the IFA before Tf-TAVI, between 2012 and 2021, were included. Primary efficacy endpoint was the rate of successful transcatheter heart valve (THV) delivery and implantation. Primary safety endpoint was the rate of PTA and access-site-related vascular complications, procedural- and in-hospital complications. RESULTS: Among 2726 Tf-TAVI procedures, 59 patients required IFA predilation. Successful THV delivery and implantation was achieved in 57 (96.6%) patients, respectively. Sheath placement was achieved in 59 (100%) patients with only one minor dissection and no major vascular complications following iliofemoral PTA. Regarding access site complications, two (3.4%) vessel perforations and one (1.7%) vessel rupture were observed, with eight (13.5%) patients requiring unplanned endovascular interventions. There was one intraprocedural death due to THV-induced vessel laceration, while in-hospital all-cause mortality was 8.5% in the present high-risk patient cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Predilation of IFA is safe and effective in patients with advanced PAD. Careful preprocedural planning is paramount in improving procedural safety and efficacy. This strategy has the potential to broaden the spectrum of patients eligible for Tf-TAVI.

Anesthetic practice during cardiac implantable electronic device implant procedures: A retrospective, single-center study.

Objectives: Data on anesthetic proceedings during cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implant procedures are scarce and it remains unclear whether anesthetic care is still required in selected patients. Methods: In this retrospective, single center study we assessed the prevalence of intraoperative anesthetic management comprising anesthetic standby, sedation or general anesthesia as well as anesthetic and procedural complications. We analyzed pre-existing and perioperative risk factors related to procedure-related adverse outcome such as perioperative cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and 30-day mortality in a uni- and multivariable analysis. Results: In total, PM and ICD insertion were performed in up to 85% and 58% under anesthetic standby, with an increasing tendency over time.Overall, Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was required in 59 patients. Acute heart failure (AHF) was the only independent pre-existing risk factor for CPR and for 30-day mortality. Sedation and general anesthesia had a significantly increased odds ratio for CPR compared to anesthetic standby. The risk for CPR significantly decreased during the study period. Conclusions: Over the years anesthetic practice during CIED implant procedures shifted from mixed anesthetic proceedings to mainly standby duties. The prevalence of complications and emergency measures is low, however not uncommon. Accordingly, the presence of an anesthesiologist should be further guaranteed when sedatives were titrated and in AHF patients. However, in patients receiving local anesthetic infiltration only, it seems safe to perform CIED implant procedures without anesthetic standby.