Farhat, Salman

Introduction: We aim to elucidate the incidence of major complications related to right heart catheterization (RHC) and ascertain if there are unique risks with right ventricular biopsy. Methods: Diagnostic RHC procedures from 1/1/2002 through 12/31/2013 were identified using the clinical scheduling system at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Major complications were identified through electronic records using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision billing codes. All events were recorded and adjudicated. Analysis was performed on four separate patient categories (RHC/RV angiography alone, RV biopsy alone, multiple RHC procedures, and concurrent RHC/LHC procedures) and the overall group. Primary outcomes are described in Table 1. Outcomes were measured within 7 days of the procedure, except for death (same day events) and tricuspid regurgitation (variable time endpoints). Results: There were 17,696 RHC procedures (5,556 RHC/RV angiography, 3,846 RV biopsy alone, 776 multiple RHC procedures, and 7,518 combined RHC/LHC). Patient population had a mean age of 56.5 years (15.3) and was predominantly male (58.5%). Same-day death related to RHC procedure occurred in 1 procedure or 0.6 of 10,000 RHCs. There was no significant difference in the risk of complications across RHC procedure categories except for worsening tricuspid regurgitation, which was significantly (p<0.001) more prevalent with RV biopsy (392 cases, 6.0%) than without (136 cases, 1.2%). Conclusion: The incidence of major complications related to right heart catheterization is rare. Worsening tricuspid regurgitation is the most frequently identified change with a significantly higher prevalence with biopsies.

Introduction: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure is well established as an alternative to anticoagulation therapy for stroke prophylaxis among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) with relative or absolute contraindications to anticoagulation. Only the Watchman® (BSC) device has FDA approval for this indication. There are no current guidelines on the choice of short term antithrombotic therapy following placement of the Watchman® device. The landmark Watchman® clinical trials utilized warfarin and aspirin in the first 45 days to facilitate endothelialization; however these studies were started prior to direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) becoming widely available. Our main objective was to compare bleeding outcomes with warfarin vs. DOACs following Watchman® device placement. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients who received a Watchman® device at all three Mayo Clinic sites (MN, FL, AZ) between January 2010 and December 2018 with follow up for outcomes at 45 days or 6 weeks following procedure. We conducted bivariate analysis using t-tests and chi-square tests as appropriate. A logistic regression model was constructed to evaluate the effect of anticoagulant choice on bleeding and thromboembolic outcomes. Clinically significant bleeding was defined as bleeding leading to interruption of anticoagulation regimen or requiring transfusion. Results: 232 patients were identified (33% female), mean age in years, CHADS2VASC score and HASBLED scores were 77, 5 and 4 respectively. Overall, 39% were initiated on non-warfarin therapies and 11% had a significant bleeding episode during follow up. There was no difference in clinically significant bleeding events (11% vs. 12%; OR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.32 – 2.65) with short term DOAC use compared to warfarin. Patients who received a Watchman® due to GI bleeding were more likely to have a bleeding event in the first 6 weeks following Watchman® (OR: 4.08, 95% CI: 1.30 – 12.75). Conclusion: This observational study demonstrates no significant difference in bleeding episodes with DOACs compared to warfarin during the first 6 weeks following Watchman® device placement in patients at high risk for bleeding. Larger prospective studies are needed.

AbstractBackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve‐in‐valve replacement (ViV) has been widely accepted as a less invasive alternative to treat failed aortic surgical or transcatheter bioprosthetic valves. Angulated aortas present an additional challenge, particularly when using self‐expanding transcatheter heart valves (SE‐THV).MethodsTwo patients with failed surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves and one patient with a failed transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valve underwent transcatheter aortic ViV using SE‐THV. All were deemed high‐risk for surgical aortic valve replacement by a heart team. All three patients had initial failed SE‐THV delivery using a conventional approach with subsequent successful delivery using the endovascular snare technique.ResultsIn Cases 1 and 2, the SE‐THV was biased towards the greater curve of the angulated aorta and behind the outer frame of the bioprosthetic valve frame. An endovascular snare was deployed through a secondary left femoral artery access, and the valve delivery system was advanced through the snare in the ascending aorta. The snare was tightened around the SE‐THV capsule proximal to the hat‐marker, allowing deflection of the SE‐THV and successful delivery. In Case 3, the SE‐THV interacted with the tall frame of a failed SE‐THV. A snare via the left femoral artery was deployed in the descending artery. The SE‐THV was advanced through the snare, and both the snare and SE‐THV were advanced together to the ascending aorta where the SE‐THV was deflected and successfully delivered.ConclusionsThe endovascular snare technique is a feasible option for successful delivery of SE‐THV during transcatheter aortic ViV in failed transcatheter or surgical bioprosthetic valves in angulated aortas.