Kenny, Damien

Abstract Background Interventional catheterization is central to the care of Adults with Congenital Heart Disease (ACHD). Current standards for care provision and training in ACHD intervention are lacking. We sought to examine trends in current practice and training among interventionalists. Methods We analyzed the results of two separate international surveys in June 2016. One was sent to all active members from the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) who self‐identified Structural Heart Disease or Congenital Heart Disease as a practice area. The second survey was conducted through the Pediatric Interventional Early Career Society (PICES) aimed at pediatric and adult congenital interventionalists in their first seven years after training. The total survey sample sizes were 1,535 and 112, respectively. Results Response rates for the SCAI and PICES surveys were 15% (237/1,535) and 75% (84/112), respectively. Most respondents (74%) worked at institutions with pediatric and adult facilities in proximity (major medical centers). While 75% of SCAI respondents believed complex transcatheter procedures should be performed by ACHD‐trained interventionalists or multidisciplinary teams, only 32% reported such care is being provided at the present time. Most pediatric and adult cardiologists surveyed (73%) do not believe current interventional fellowships provide adequate training for proficiency in ACHD interventions. Conclusions ACHD management remains underdeveloped in relative terms, particularly in the United States. Significant gaps in interventional standards of practice and future training needs were recognized by this study. Our survey should serve as an impetus to establish training guidelines for physicians who seek to perform ACHD interventions.

ObjectivesTo describe acute and mid‐term results of hybrid perventricular device closure of muscular ventricular septal defects (mVSDs).BackgroundPerventricular device closure of mVSDs can mitigate technical limitations of percutaneous closure and need for cardiopulmonary bypass or ventriculotomy with a surgical approach.MethodsThis is a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing hybrid perventricular mVSD device closure from 1/2004 to 1/2014. Procedural details, adverse events, outcomes, and follow‐up data were collected. Patients were divided into two groups: (1) simple (mVSD closure alone) and (2) complex (mVSD closure with concomitant cardiac surgery).ResultsForty‐seven patients (60% female) underwent perventricular mVSD device closure at a median age of 5.2 months (IQR 1.8–8.9) and weight of 5.1 kg (IQR 4.0–6.9). Procedural success was 91% [100% (n = 22) simple and 84% (n = 21/25) complex]. Adverse events occurred in 19% (9/47) [9% (2/22) simple and 28% (7/25) complex]. Hospital length of stay (LOS) was shorter in the simple vs. complex group (4 vs. 14 days, P < 0.01). At mid‐term follow‐up of 19.2 months (IQR 2.3–43) 90% of pts had complete mVSD closure; none developed late heart block, increased atrioventricular (AV) valve insufficiency or ventricular dysfunction.ConclusionsPerventricular device closure of simple mVSD was associated with a high rate of procedural success, few adverse events, and short hospital LOS. Procedural adverse events were associated with the presence of concomitant complex surgery. Residual mVSD, AV valve insufficiency, or ventricular dysfunction were uncommon at mid‐term follow‐up. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background— Off-label use of transcatheter aortic and pulmonary valve prostheses for tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation (TVIV) within dysfunctional surgical tricuspid valve (TV) bioprostheses has been described in small reports. Methods and Results— An international, multicenter registry was developed to collect data on TVIV cases. Patient-related factors, procedural details and outcomes, and follow-up data were analyzed. Valve-in-ring or heterotopic TV implantation procedures were not included. Data were collected on 156 patients with bioprosthetic TV dysfunction who underwent catheterization with planned TVIV. The median age was 40 years, and 71% of patients were in New York Heart Association class III or IV. Among 152 patients in whom TVIV was attempted with a Melody (n=94) or Sapien (n=58) valve, implantation was successful in 150, with few serious complications. After TVIV, both the TV inflow gradient and tricuspid regurgitation grade improved significantly. During follow-up (median, 13.3 months), 22 patients died, 5 within 30 days; all 22 patients were in New York Heart Association class III or IV, and 9 were hospitalized before TVIV. There were 10 TV reinterventions, and 3 other patients had significant recurrent TV dysfunction. At follow-up, 77% of patients were in New York Heart Association class I or II ( P <0.001 versus before TVIV). Outcomes did not differ according to surgical valve size or TVIV valve type. Conclusions— TVIV with commercially available transcatheter prostheses is technically and clinically successful in patients of various ages across a wide range of valve size. Although preimplantation clinical status was associated with outcome, many patients in New York Heart Association class III or IV at baseline improved. TVIV should be considered a viable option for treatment of failing TV bioprostheses.