PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 24, 2026JACC Case Reports0 citationsOpen Access

Temporary Mechanical Support as a Bridge to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Cardiogenic Shock

View Full Paper
AAAhmed AlBadriRBRyan J. BurkeABAbdul Bikak

Key Result

Temporary mechanical circulatory support facilitated hemodynamic stabilization, recovery of end-organ function, and successful TAVR in all 3 patients with severe aortic valve disease.

Key Points

  • This research examines the use of temporary mechanical circulatory support as a strategy to stabilize cardiogenic shock patients before valve replacement.
  • Case series of 3 patients with cardiogenic shock due to severe aortic valve disease.
  • Utilized temporary mechanical circulatory support devices tailored to valve pathology and vascular access.
  • Evaluated hemodynamic outcomes and recovery of organ function before transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
  • All patients achieved hemodynamic stabilization with MCS, enabling successful TAVR.
  • End-organ function recovery was evident post-intervention for all cases.
  • Individualized MCS strategies contributed to safe and effective valve replacement.

Study Design

Type

Case Report (n=3)

Structured PICO

Does temporary mechanical circulatory support facilitate successful TAVR in patients with cardiogenic shock due to severe aortic valve disease?

P
Population
3 patients with cardiogenic shock due to severe aortic valve disease (severe aortic stenosis or degenerated bioprosthetic valves)
I
Intervention
Temporary mechanical circulatory support (transseptal left ventricular assist device or transvalvular axial-flow device) as a bridge to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)
O
Outcome
Hemodynamic stabilization, recovery of end-organ function, and successful valve intervention

Temporary mechanical circulatory support is a feasible strategy to stabilize patients with cardiogenic shock due to severe aortic valve disease, serving as an effective bridge to TAVR.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock in the setting of severe aortic stenosis or degenerated bioprosthetic valves is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Definitive valve intervention is often deferred due to profound hemodynamic instability and multiorgan dysfunction. Optimal strategies to stabilize these patients before transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remain incompletely defined. CASE SUMMARY: We present a case series of 3 patients with cardiogenic shock due to severe aortic valve disease who were managed with temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) as a bridge to TAVR. Hemodynamic support strategies, including a transseptal left ventricular assist device or a transvalvular axial-flow device, were selected based on valve pathology, vascular access, and anticoagulation considerations. MCS facilitated hemodynamic stabilization, recovery of end-organ function, and successful valve intervention in all cases. DISCUSSION: These cases highlight the feasibility of individualized MCS strategies to stabilize patients with aortic stenosis-related cardiogenic shock, enabling safe TAVR and meaningful patient recovery. TAKE-HOME MESSAGES: Temporary mechanical circulatory support may serve as an effective bridge to TAVR in selected patients with cardiogenic shock due to severe aortic valve disease. Individualized device selection and multidisciplinary Heart Team collaboration are essential to achieving favorable outcomes.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

AlBadri et al. (2026) conducted a case report in Cardiogenic shock due to severe aortic valve disease (n=3). Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) was evaluated on Hemodynamic stabilization, recovery of end-organ function, and successful valve intervention. Temporary mechanical circulatory support facilitated hemodynamic stabilization, recovery of end-organ function, and successful TAVR in all 3 patients with severe aortic valve disease.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1296b248a0ea1665673acbhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccas.2026.108380
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Implantation for Aortic Stenosis in Patients Who Cannot Undergo Surgery2010 · 7,226 citations
  2. 2Transseptal Techniques for Emerging Structural Heart Interventions2016 · 153 citations
  3. 3Bioprosthetic valve fracture: Technical insights from a multicenter study2019 · 104 citations
  4. 4Analysis of outcomes for 15,259 US patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMICS) supported with the Impella device2018 · 234 citations
  5. 5Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis With Normal and Depressed Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction2012 · 446 citations