RESUMEN
Transcatheter pulmonary valve replacement (TPVR) is now frequently performed in adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) patients. As the life-expectancy of the ACHD population continues to improve, more patients will require pulmonary valve intervention. This study details the short-term and mid-term clinical outcomes of patients aged 40 years and older undergoing TPVR. We performed an institutional retrospective cohort study that included patients aged 40 and older undergoing TPVR (and clinical follow up) from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2024. Descriptive analyses, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and Cox proportional hazard modeling were utilized to determine outcomes and risk factors affecting survival. The study included 67 patients and median age at TPVR was 48 [43,57] years. Median hospital length of stay following TPVR was 1 [1,3] day, peri-procedural complications occurred in 5 patients and acute kidney injury occurred in 1 patient. Median duration of follow-up was 3.5 [0.1,9.7] years. There were 9 total deaths and 1, 3, and 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival after TPVR was 95%, 91%, and 82%, respectively. Moderate or worse right ventricular dysfunction was present in 22 patients before TPVR and in 20 patients after TPVR. Inpatient status prior to TPVR negatively impacted survival (HRâ¯=â¯24.7 [3.3, 186.1], p=0.002). In conclusion, TPVR was performed in patients ages 40 and older with favorable periprocedural and mid-term follow-up outcomes including survival, but right ventricular dysfunction did not improve and further exploration on ideal timing of TPVR in this age group is warranted.
RESUMEN
Background: Radiation exposure during invasive cardiovascular procedures remains an important health care issue. Lead aprons and shields (LAS) are used to decrease radiation exposure but leave large portions of the body unshielded. The Rampart IC M1128 is a portable radiation shielding system that may significantly attenuate radiation exposure. Methods: Catheterization laboratory teams were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to perform elective invasive cardiovascular procedures utilizing either traditional LAS or the Rampart IC M1128. Radiation exposure was measured using real-time dosimetry monitoring in prespecified anatomic locations on 3 operators (position 1: first operator/fellow; position 2: second operator/attending; and position 3: catheterization laboratory nurse/technologist). Radiation exposure was measured on a per-case basis. Results: In total, 100 consecutive cases were randomized in this study (47 Rampart; 53 LAS). There was no difference in fluoroscopy time (12.3 minutes for Rampart vs 15.4 minutes for LAS; P = .52), dose area product (288 Gyâ cm2 for Rampart vs 376.5 Gyâ cm2 for LAS; P = .52), or scatter radiation (38.8 mRem for Rampart vs 46.8 mRem for LAS; P = .61) between the groups. There was significantly lower total body radiation (in milliroentgen equivalent man) exposure using the Rampart than that using LAS for each team member: position 1-0.1 mRem for Rampart vs 2.2 mRem for LAS; P < .001; position 2-0.1 mRem Rampart vs 3.2 mRem LAS; P < .001; and position 3-0.0 mRem for Rampart vs 0.8 mRem for LAS; P < .001. Conclusions: During routine clinical procedures, the Rampart system significantly decreases total body radiation exposure compared with traditional LAS.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Data on valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are limited. OBJECTIVES: The authors compared the 5-year incidence of valve reintervention after self-expanding CoreValve/Evolut TAVR vs SAVR. METHODS: Pooled data from CoreValve and Evolut R/PRO (Medtronic) randomized trials and single-arm studies encompassed 5,925 TAVR (4,478 CoreValve and 1,447 Evolut R/PRO) and 1,832 SAVR patients. Reinterventions were categorized by indication, timing, and treatment. The cumulative incidence of reintervention was compared between TAVR vs SAVR, Evolut vs CoreValve, and Evolut vs SAVR. RESULTS: There were 99 reinterventions (80 TAVR and 19 SAVR). The cumulative incidence of reintervention through 5 years was higher with TAVR vs SAVR (2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.017), with differences observed early (≤1 year; adjusted subdistribution HR: 3.50; 95% CI: 1.53-8.02) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.48-2.28). The most common reason for reintervention was paravalvular regurgitation after TAVR and endocarditis after SAVR. Evolut had a significantly lower incidence of reintervention than CoreValve (0.9% vs 1.6%; P = 0.006) at 5 years with differences observed early (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12-0.73) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.21-1.74). The 5-year incidence of reintervention was similar for Evolut vs SAVR (0.9% vs 1.5%; P = 0.41). CONCLUSIONS: A low incidence of reintervention was observed for CoreValve/Evolut R/PRO and SAVR through 5 years. Reintervention occurred most often at ≤1 year for TAVR and >1 year for SAVR. Most early reinterventions were with the first-generation CoreValve and managed percutaneously. Reinterventions were more common following CoreValve TAVR compared with Evolut TAVR or SAVR.
Asunto(s)
Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica , Implantación de Prótesis de Válvulas Cardíacas , Complicaciones Posoperatorias , Reemplazo de la Válvula Aórtica Transcatéter , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Válvula Aórtica/cirugía , Válvula Aórtica/diagnóstico por imagen , Válvula Aórtica/fisiopatología , Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/cirugía , Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/diagnóstico por imagen , Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/fisiopatología , Prótesis Valvulares Cardíacas , Implantación de Prótesis de Válvulas Cardíacas/efectos adversos , Implantación de Prótesis de Válvulas Cardíacas/instrumentación , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/cirugía , Diseño de Prótesis , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Factores de Tiempo , Reemplazo de la Válvula Aórtica Transcatéter/efectos adversos , Reemplazo de la Válvula Aórtica Transcatéter/instrumentación , Resultado del Tratamiento , Incidencia , RetratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction is a source of morbidity in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and a life-threatening complication of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Available surgical and transcatheter approaches are limited by high surgical risk, unsuitable septal perforators, and heart block requiring permanent pacemakers. OBJECTIVES: The authors report the initial experience of a novel transcatheter electrosurgical procedure developed to mimic surgical myotomy. METHODS: We used septal scoring along midline endocardium (SESAME) to treat patients, on a compassionate basis, with symptomatic LVOT obstruction or to create space to facilitate TMVR or TAVR. RESULTS: In this single-center retrospective study between 2021 and 2023, 76 patients underwent SESAME. In total, 11 (14%) had classic HCM, and the remainder underwent SESAME to facilitate TMVR or TAVR. All had technically successful SESAME myocardial laceration. Measures to predict post-TMVR LVOT significantly improved (neo-LVOT 42 mm2 [Q1-Q3: 7-117 mm2] to 170 mm2 [Q1-Q3: 95-265 mm2]; P < 0.001; skirt-neo-LVOT 169 mm2 [Q1-Q3: 153-193 mm2] to 214 mm2 [Q1-Q3: 180-262 mm2]; P < 0.001). Among patients with HCM, SESAME significantly decreased invasive LVOT gradients (resting: 54 mm Hg [Q1-Q3: 40-70 mm Hg] to 29 mm Hg [Q1-Q3: 12-36 mm Hg]; P = 0.023; provoked 146 mm Hg [Q1-Q3: 100-180 mm Hg] to 85 mm Hg [Q1-Q3: 40-120 mm Hg]; P = 0.076). A total of 74 (97.4%) survived the procedure. Five experienced 3 of 76 (3.9%) iatrogenic ventricular septal defects that did not require repair and 3 of 76 (3.9%) ventricular free wall perforations. Neither occurred in patients treated for HCM. Permanent pacemakers were required in 4 of 76 (5.3%), including 2 after concomitant TAVR. Lacerations were stable and did not propagate after SESAME (remaining septum: 5.9 ± 3.3 mm to 6.1 ± 3.2 mm; P = 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: With further experience, SESAME may benefit patients requiring septal reduction therapy for obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy as well as those with LVOT obstruction after heart valve replacement, and/or can help facilitate transcatheter valve implantation.