A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Transcatheter management of pure native aortic valve regurgitation in patients with left ventricular assist device. | LitMetric

Objectives: Aortic valve regurgitation (AR) frequently complicates the clinical course after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in this cohort with a mostly high surgical risk profile. The unique challenges in LVAD patients, such as presence of non-calcified aortic valves and annular dilatation, raise concerns about device migration and paravalvular leakage (PVL) leading to missing device success. This study evaluates procedural outcomes and survival rates in LVAD patients who underwent TAVI, emphasizing strategies to enhance device success.

Methods: Between January 2017 and April 2023, 27 LVAD patients with clinically significant AR underwent elective or urgent TAVI at our centre. Primary end-points were procedural success rates, without the need for a second transcatheter heart valve (THV) and postprocedural AR/PVL. Secondary outcomes included survival rates and adverse events.

Results: Among the cohort, 14.8% received AR-dedicated TAVI devices, with none requiring a second THV. There was no intraprocedural AR, and 1 patient (25%) had AR > 'trace' at discharge. Additionally, 25.9% underwent device landing zone (DLZ) pre-stenting with a standard TAVI device, all without needing a second THV. There was no intraprocedural AR, and none to trace AR at discharge. Among the 59.3% receiving standard TAVI devices, 37.5% required a second THV. In this subgroup, intraprocedural AR > 'trace' occurred in 12.5%, decreasing to 6.25% at discharge. In-hospital mortality was 3.7%, and median follow-up survival was 388 days (interquartile range 208-1167 days).

Conclusions: TAVI yields promising procedural outcomes and early survival rates in LVAD patients with AR. Tailored TAVI devices and pre-stenting techniques enhance procedural success. Continued research into these strategies is essential to optimize outcomes in this complex patient cohort.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezae028DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

aortic valve
16
lvad patients
16
survival rates
12
tavi devices
12
second thv
12
valve regurgitation
8
left ventricular
8
ventricular assist
8
assist device
8
tavi
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!