A Rare Iatrogenic Trio: Pneumopericardium, Pneumoperitoneum, and Pericarditis.

We present a rare case of iatrogenic pneumopericardium, pneumoperitoneum, and Escherichia coli pericarditis after emergency pericardiocentesis for pericardial tamponade. The patient had profound bowel distention at the time of the procedure that led to iatrogenic pericardioperitoneal fistula formation along with transverse colon perforation, which manifested later after pericardial drain removal. This condition required repeat pericardiocentesis, laparoscopic colon repair, a long course of antibiotics, and an eventual pericardial window. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

Feasibility of Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair for Non-A2P2 Mitral Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: MitraClip is approved for treatment of both degenerative and functional mitral regurgitation (MR). The landmark trials for this device included only patients with A2P2 location of MR. Initial commercial experience showed A2P2 location was associated with higher technical success as compared with non-A2P2 location. We intended to compare technical success of A2P2 vs non-A2P2 MitraClip procedures in terms of residual MR and transmitral gradient (TMG) in the contemporary setting as the operator experience has increased. A total of 159 patients with complete data were included in the study. A total of 129 patients were in the A2P2 MitraClip group and 30 patients were in the non-A2P2 MitraClip group. Post implantation, there was a significant increase in TMG in both A2P2 and non-A2P2 groups (0.73 ± 1.42 and 0.94 ± 1.85, respectively; both P<.01). However, postimplantation TMG was not different between the 2 groups (3.6 ± 1.9 A2P2 vs 3.7 ± 1.7 non-A2P2; P=.56) and there was no difference in residual MR (P=.40). At 1-month follow-up of 82 patients (64 A2P2 and 18 non-A2P2), the results were similar; TMG (3.7 ± 1.6 A2P2 vs 3.7 ± 2.1 non-A2P2; P=.96) and residual MR (P=.41). Our data showed similar technical success of MitraClip procedures in both types of MR.

Incidence of Early Atrial Fibrillation After Transcatheter versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Post-operative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is common after aortic valve replacement (AVR) and is associated with worse outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR) and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) for incidence of POAF at 30 days. METHODS: We searched databases from 1/1/1990 to 1/1/2020 for randomized studies comparing TAVR and SAVR. POAF was defined as either worsening or new-onset atrial fibrillation. Random effects model was used to estimate the risk of POAF with TAVR vs SAVR in all trials, and in subgroups (low, intermediate, high risk, and in self-expandable vs balloon expandable valves). Sensitivity analysis was performed including only studies reporting new-onset atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: Seven RCTs were identified that enrolled 7,934 patients (3,999 to TAVR and 3,935 to SAVR). The overall incidence of POAF was 9.7% after TAVR and 33.3% after SAVR. TAVR was associated with a lower risk of POAF compared with SAVR (OR 0.21 [0.18-0.24]; P < 0.0001). Compared with SAVR, TAVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of POAF in the high-risk cohort (OR 0.37 [0.27-0.49]; P < 0.0001), in the intermediate-risk cohort (OR 0.23 [0.19-0.28]; P < 0.0001), low-risk cohort (OR 0.13 [0.10-0.16]; P < 0.0001). Sensitivity analysis of 4 trials including only new-onset POAF showed similar summary estimates (OR 0.21, 95% CI [0.18-0.25]; P< 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: TAVR is associated with a significantly lower risk of post-operative atrial fibrillation compared with SAVR in all strata. Further studies are needed to identify the contribution of post-operative atrial fibrillation to the differences in clinical outcomes after TAVR and SAVR.