Successful Urgent TAVI for Critical Aortic Valve Stenosis after ECMO Implantation.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has evolved to be the treatment of choice for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high perioperative risk. Cardiogenic shock is one of the most severe complications during the TAVI procedure, especially as the prognosis of cardiogenic shock secondary to aortic stenosis is very poor. This situation can be challenging, while extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (ECMO) can be a treatment option. Here, we reported on an 88-year-old female patient who had been diagnosed as non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and critical aortic valve stenosis (AS) with a logistic Euroscore of 25%. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty (PCI) was performed smoothly and developed tachy-brady arrhythmia of atrial fibrillation then cardiac arrest at the beginning of the TAVI procedure. A v-a ECMO was installed at her left femoral side. Afterward, the TAVI procedure was completed accordingly; her consciousness recovered and Levosimendan therapy enhanced her left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from 22% to 40%. Five days after TAVI, ECMO was replaced by intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP) and it was removed 3 days later. A minor complication of this therapy, e.g., muscular weakness in her left leg, was noted. The patient underwent rehabilitation for about 2 months, and was discharged from hospital with a wheel chair and clear consciousness. At the 24 month follow-up she was in good recovery and was able to walk upstairs to the second floor again. Our experience suggests that one indication of prophylactic use of ECMO is for patients with an unstable hemodynamic condition.

Predictors of Need for Permanent Pacemaker Implantation and Conduction Abnormalities With a Novel Self-expanding Transcatheter Heart Valve.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) and new conduction abnormalities (CA) with the ACURATE neo (Symetis S.A., Eclubens, Switzerland) has not been studied in detail. We aimed to analyze their predictors, evaluating patient- and device-related factors, including implantation depth and device-to-annulus ratio (DAR). METHODS: Two analyses of a multicenter population were performed: new PPI in pacemaker-naive patients (n = 283), and PPI/new-CA in patients without prior CA or pacemaker (n = 232). RESULTS: A new PPI was required in 9.9% of patients, who had a higher body mass index, higher rate of right bundle branch block and bradycardia. Neither implantation depth nor DAR differed in patients with PPI compared with those without. In the multivariable analysis neither DAR (OR, 1.010; 95%CI, 0.967-1.055; P = .7) nor implantation depth (OR, 0.972; 95%CI, 0.743-1.272; P = .8) predicted PPI. Only high body mass index, bradycardia and right bundle branch block persisted as independent predictors. PPI/new-onset CA occurred in 22.8% of patients and was associated with a higher logistic EuroSCORE. Neither implantation depth nor DAR differed in patients with PPI/new-CA vs those without (7.3 ± 1.9 vs 7.1 ± 1.5mm; P = .6 and 41.0 ± 7.9 vs 42.2 ± 10.1%; P = .4). The only predictor of PPI/new-CA was a higher logistic EuroSCORE (OR, 1.039; 95%CI, [1.008-1.071]; P = .013). CONCLUSIONS: New PPI and new-onset CA rates were low with the ACURATE neo. These were mainly influenced by patient characteristics and not by device-depending factors.