Key result
Planned CPB or VA-ECMO enables safe concomitant TAVR and PCI in high-risk non-surgical patients.
Why the study?
Evidence guiding the use of cardiopulmonary bypass or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during concomitant TAVR and PCI in high-risk patients was lacking.
Does planned mechanical circulatory support with CPB or VA-ECMO provide safe and effective support for high-risk patients undergoing concomitant TAVR and PCI?
Observational (n=6)
Does planned mechanical circulatory support with CPB or VA-ECMO provide safe and effective support for high-risk patients undergoing concomitant TAVR and PCI?
Planned mechanical circulatory support with CPB or VA-ECMO is a feasible and safe approach for high-risk patients undergoing concomitant TAVR and PCI.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports MCS-assisted concomitant TAVR-PCI in select non-surgical patients; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice pending larger trials.
OBJECTIVES: Patients with coexisting severe aortic stenosis (AS) and critical coronary artery disease (CAD) face high procedural risk when treated percutaneously. Although mechanical circulatory support (MCS) can mitigate hemodynamic instability, evidence guiding the use of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) during concomitant transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is lacking. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed 6 high-risk patients who underwent concomitant TAVR and PCI with planned MCS using CPB or venoarterial (VA)-ECMO between 2015 and 2023. Outcomes were classified according to VARC-3 criteria. RESULTS: Six male patients (mean age 77.3 ± 8.3 years) underwent concomitant TAVR and PCI with planned MCS using CPB (n = 4, 2015-2020) or VA-ECMO (n = 2, 2022-2023). Complete coronary revascularization was achieved in 4 cases (66.7%). Implanted valves included 2 self-expanding and 4 balloon-expandable prostheses. The mean catheter-measured transaortic gradient decreased from 37.2 ± 17.6 mm Hg to 3.9 ± 2.1 mm Hg (P = .006). Trace (1+) paravalvular leak occurred in 4 patients (66.7%), with none 2+ or higher. There were no intraprocedural complications, neurologic events, major bleeding, vascular complications, or 30-day deaths. Three patients (50%) developed new conduction abnormalities, all without pacemaker requirement. Acute kidney injury occurred in 3 (Stage I, 50%). The mean intensive care and total hospital stays were 5.5 ± 3.5 and 8.3 ± 6.0 days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Planned CPB or VA-ECMO support enabled safe performance of concomitant TAVR and PCI in non-surgical, high-risk patients, representing a feasible approach for selected complex cases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gomez et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Severe aortic stenosis and critical coronary artery disease (n=6). Planned mechanical circulatory support (CPB or VA-ECMO) was evaluated on VARC-3 criteria outcomes. Planned mechanical circulatory support using CPB or VA-ECMO during concomitant TAVR and PCI in 6 high-risk patients resulted in no intraprocedural complications or 30-day deaths.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: