Citations

Background— The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) led to renewed interest in balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV). We sought to assess contemporary trends in BAV utilization and their outcomes. Methods and Results— The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to identify patients who underwent BAV between 2004 and 2013. In-hospital morbidity and mortality, and predictors of death after BAV were assessed. Outcomes of propensity-matched groups of patients undergoing elective BAV or TAVR were evaluated. BAV utilization increased from 707 cases in 2004 to 3715 cases in 2013 (national estimates). Procedural and in-hospital mortality were 1.4% and 8.5%, respectively. Vascular complications occurred in 7.0% of cases, blood transfusion in 17.5%, clinical stroke in 1.8%, and pacemaker implantation in 3.0%. The strongest predictors of in-hospital death were cardiogenic shock (odds ratio, 6.01; 95% confidence interval, 4.19–8.61; P <0.001), need for left ventricular assist device (odds ratio, 3.48; 95% confidence interval, 2.25–5.36; P <0.001), coagulopathy (odds ratio, 2.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.51–3.18; P <0.001), and low institutional volume of BAV (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.06–2.37; P =0.03). In propensity-matched patients undergoing elective BAV or TAVR, rates of in-hospital mortality (2.9% versus 3.5%; P =0.60), clinical stroke (1.6% versus 3.1%; P =0.10), and vascular complications (8.2% versus 10.9%; P =0.14) were similar. However, BAV was associated with lower rates of pacemaker implantation (2.9% versus 8.0%; P <0.001) and blood transfusion (12.8% versus 22.9%; P <0.001). Conclusions— In a contemporary national registry, BAV is associated with significant morbidity and mortality that are similar to TAVR. With the substantial increase in BAV utilization and the continuous improvement in TAVR outcomes, these data have important implications to aid clinicians in the selection of appropriate BAV candidates.

BackgroundPercutaneous paravalvular leak (PVL) closure is an alternative treatment option for severely symptomatic, high‐surgical risk patients with PVL. Some patients require multiple percutaneous PVL closure procedures. However, the procedural characteristics and success rate of re‐do PVL closure have not been well studied.AimsThe aim of this study is to investigate the indications, procedural characteristics, technical success rate, and 30‐day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients who underwent re‐do PVL closure.MethodsConsecutive patients who underwent percutaneous paramitral or paraaortic leak closure at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota from 2004 through 2015 were studied. Clinical and procedural characteristics of patients who underwent re‐do PVL closure were compared to age‐ and sex‐matched patients who underwent their first percutaneous PVL closure. Procedure success and 30‐day MACE were compared in both the groups.ResultsAmong 223 identified percutaneous PVL closures, 16 (7%) were re‐do procedures. Patients who underwent re‐do PVL closure were predominantly men (87.5%) with a mean age of 68 ± 15 years and an estimated mean Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) 30‐day mortality of 4.6 ± 2.8. Half of the re‐do PVL closures were performed on mechanical valves and 62.5% were performed on paramitral defects. Indications for re‐do PVL closure were: (1) emergence of new significant paravalvular defects in 50%, (2) incomplete index defect closure in 43.75%, and (3) index procedural complication in 6.25% of the cases. Procedural success was 75% in re‐do procedures vs. 85.4% in age‐ and sex‐matched control group (P = 0.45). Thirty‐day MACE was 12.5% in the re‐do group compared to 4.2% in the age‐ and‐sex matched patients who underwent PVL closure for the first time (P = 0.35).ConclusionRe‐do percutaneous PVL closure is feasible with favorable procedural success rate and low 30‐day MACE. Development of new paravalvular defects is the most common indication for re‐do PVL closure, highlighting the importance of careful longitudinal monitoring and follow‐up. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.