Back to Authors

Wyman, Janet

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2073-3506

Mayo Clinic

Henry Ford Health

Citations 2

Short‐ and mid‐term outcomes in percutaneous mitral valve replacement using balloon expandable valves
Eng, Marvin H. , Kargoli, Faraj , Wang, Dee Dee , Frisoli, Tiberio , Villablanca, Pedro, Nemeh, Hassan, Guerrero, Mayra , O’Neill, Brian , Wyman, Janet , Guerrero, Mayra E , O'Neill, Brian P , Wang, Dee Dee , Lee, James C. , Villablanca, Pedro, Greenbaum, Adam B. , O’Neill, William W.

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions | June 9, 2021 | Volume: 98 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 1193-1203

10.1002/ccd.29783 Get It

AbstractBackgroundDue to elevated surgical risk, transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is used as an alternative for treating failed bioprosthetic valves, annuloplasty repairs and mitral annular calcification (MAC). We report the procedural and longitudinal outcomes for each subtype: Mitral valve‐in‐valve (MVIV), mitral valve‐in‐ring (MViR), and valve‐in‐MAC (ViMAC).MethodsConsecutive patients undergoing TMVR from October 2013 to December 2019 were assessed. Patients at high risk for left ventricular outflow tract obstruction had either alcohol septal ablation or intentional laceration of the anterior leaflet (LAMPOON).ResultsEight‐eight patients underwent TMVR; 38 MViV, 31 MViR, and 19 ViMAC procedures were performed. The median Society of Thoracic Surgery 30‐day predicted risk of mortality was 8.2% (IQR 5.2, 19.9) for all. Sapien 3 (78%) and transseptal access (98%) were utilized in most cases. All‐cause in‐hospital mortality, technical, and procedural success were 8%, 83%, and 66% respectively. Median follow up was 1.4 years (IQR 0.5–2.9 years) and overall survival was 40% at 4 years. Differential survival rates were observed with MViV doing the best, followed by MViR and ViMAC having a <20% survival at 4 years. After adjusting for co‐variates, MViV procedure was the strongest predictor of survival (HR 0.24 [95% CI 0.079–0.7]).ConclusionTMVR is performed in at high‐risk patients with attenuated long‐term survival. MViV has the best success and survival rate, but long‐term survival in MViR and ViMAC is guarded.
Complete percutaneous apical access and closure: Short and intermediate term outcomes
Eng, Marvin H. , Kherallah, Riyad , Guerrero, Mayra , Frisoli, Tiberio , Villablanca, Pedro , Wang, Dee Dee , Wyman, Janet , Wang, Dee Dee , Guerrero, Mayra E , Greenbaum, Adam B. , Lee, James , O’Neill, William W.

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions | January 20, 2020 | Volume: 96 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 481-487

10.1002/ccd.28731 Get It

AbstractObjectivesTo examine the safety of utilizing transapical access during structural interventions.BackgroundComplex interventions of the mitral or aortic region sometimes require coaxial forces to orient and deliver devices. Apical access can provide coaxial countertraction for either transseptal or retrograde aortic access. This manuscript describes the single center experience of small bore transapical access.MethodsRetrospective review of cases from 2013 to 2018 at Henry Ford Hospital was performed. Patient demographics and procedure characteristics were abstracted to describe the safety of transapical access using small bore sheaths.ResultsA total 21 cases were performed at Henry Ford, most of them for transcatheter mitral valve replacement (81%). The mean sheath size used was 4.7 ± 0.9 Fr and protamine was used at the end of 57% of cases. All patients received nitinol‐based plugs, 80.1% were from the Amplatz Duct Occluder II type. Four major complications related apical puncture occurred, two pericardial effusions, two hemothorax. Over a median follow time of 430 days (IQR 50–652) a total of five deaths occurred, two related to the procedure and three late deaths with a median time of 362 days (range 205–628 days). No deaths were associated with transapical access. Echocardiographic follow up did not detect any late structural complications from occluder devices.ConclusionsTransapical access and closure with nitinol‐based devices is feasible and facilitates complex interventions where coaxial forces are need for device delivery and alignment. The most common complication is bleeding and this should be kept in perspective when treating high‐risk patients.