Diagnosis and Management of Rare Case of Mesenteric Hematoma Rupture after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR): A Case Report and Review of the Literature.

We present a case of a 78-year-old female with history of diastolic heart failure and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation on apixaban presenting with worsening shortness of breath. She underwent transesophageal echocardiogram showing severe aortic stenosis with a valve area of 0.8 cm2. Coronary angiography did not reveal significant coronary artery disease. CT of chest, abdomen, and pelvis did not show any evidence of hematoma or dissection. Patient was scheduled for transfemoral TAVR. Patient's apixaban was discontinued prior to the procedure. She received heparin during the procedure. She successfully underwent left transfemoral aortic valve replacement. Shortly after the procedure, she complained of abdominal pain and became hypotensive. Blood pressure was 76/44 mm of Hg (MAP 58). Hemoglobin dropped to 8.1 g/dl (baseline 13). Stat CT abdomen and pelvis showed a large volume of hemorrhage in the peritoneal cavity. CTA of abdomen showed no evidence of aortic aneurysm or dissection but active extravasation below the inferior aspect of the spleen. Catheterization of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) identified ileal branch of SMA as the source of bleeding. Embolization using gel foam slurry followed by a coil insertion was performed. Repeat angiogram demonstrated continued extravasation through arcade collaterals. A rapid exploration of the abdominal cavity revealed ruptured mesenteric hematoma. Evacuation of hematoma was performed. Portion of small ileum and bleeding mesenteric branch vessel was resected. Her condition stabilized with no postoperative bleeding and she was discharged on warfarin postoperatively. Use of antithrombotic therapy increases risk of bleeding in TAVR patients. Mesenteric hematoma rupture if not identified can be life-threatening. We believe that this is the first reported case of mesenteric hematoma rupture after a TAVR procedure.

Prospective Assessment of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio to Assess Coronary Stenosis Relevance: Results of ADVISE II International, Multicenter Study (ADenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation II).

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) to characterize, outside of a pre-specified range of values, stenosis severity, as defined by fractional flow reserve (FFR) ≤0.80, in a prospective, independent, controlled, core laboratory-based environment. BACKGROUND: Studies with methodological heterogeneity have reported some discrepancies in the classification agreement between iFR and FFR. The ADVISE II (ADenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation II) study was designed to overcome limitations of previous iFR versus FFR comparisons. METHODS: A total of 919 intermediate coronary stenoses were investigated during baseline and hyperemia. From these, 690 pressure recordings (n = 598 patients) met core laboratory physiology criteria and are included in this report. RESULTS: The pre-specified iFR cut-off of 0.89 was optimal for the study and correctly classified 82.5% of the stenoses, with a sensitivity of 73.0% and specificity of 87.8% (C statistic: 0.90 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88 to 0.92, p < 0.001]). The proportion of stenoses properly classified by iFR outside of the pre-specified treatment (≤0.85) and deferral (≥0.94) values was 91.6% (95% CI: 88.8% to 93.9%). When combined with FFR use within these cut-offs, the percent of stenoses properly classified by such a pre-specified hybrid iFR-FFR approach was 94.2% (95% CI: 92.2% to 95.8%). The hybrid iFR-FFR approach obviated vasodilators from 65.1% (95% CI: 61.1% to 68.9%) of patients and 69.1% (95% CI: 65.5% to 72.6%) of stenoses. CONCLUSIONS: The ADVISE II study supports, on the basis rigorous methodology, the diagnostic value of iFR in establishing the functional significance of coronary stenoses, and highlights its complementariness with FFR when used in a hybrid iFR-FFR approach. (ADenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation II-ADVISE II; NCT01740895).

Improved survival with drug-eluting stent implantation in comparison with bare metal stent in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the efficacy of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation (Sirolimus or Paclitaxel) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and compared the outcome with a similar group of patients undergoing bare metal stent (BMS) implantation. BACKGROUND: Patients with severe LV dysfunction are a high risk group. DES may improve the long term outcomes compared with BMS. METHODS: One hundred and ninety one patients (23% women) with severe LV dysfunction (LV ejection fraction < or =35%) underwent coronary stent implantation between May 2002 and May 2005 and were available for follow-up. One hundred and twenty eight patients received DES (Sirolimus in 72 and Paclitaxel in 54) and 63 patients had BMS. Patients with acute S-T elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were excluded. The primary endpoint was cardiovascular mortality. A composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) was the secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 420 +/- 271 days. No differences were noted in age (69 +/- 10 years vs. 70 +/- 10 years, P = NS), number of vessel disease (2.3 +/- 0.7 vs. 2.2 +/- 0.8, P = NS), history of congestive heart failure (47% vs. 46%, P = NS), MI (60% vs. 61%, P = NS), or number of treated vessels (1.3 +/- 0.5 vs. 1.3 +/- 0.6, P = NS) for the DES and BMS group, respectively. Diabetes was more common among DES patients (45% vs. 25%, P = 0.01). The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was similar between the two groups (28% +/- 6% vs. 26% +/- 8%, P = NS for the DES and BMS, respectively). During the follow-up, there were a total of 25 deaths of which two were cancer related (2 in DES group). There were 23 cardiac deaths, 8/126 (6%) which occurred in the DES group and 15/63 (24%) in the BMS group (P = 0.05 by log-rank test). MACE rate was 10% for the DES group and 41% for the BMS group (P = 0.003). NYHA class improved in both groups (from 2.5 +/- 0.8 to 1.7 +/- 0.8 in DES and from 2 +/- 0.8 to 1.4 +/- 0.7 in the BMS, P = NS). CONCLUSION: Compared with bare-metal stents, DES implantation reduces mortality and MACE in high risk patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction.